Full text of "For victory in peaceful competition with capitalism"

See other formats

UNIVERSITY
OF FLORIDA
LIBRARIES

COLLEGE LIBRARV

IDEAL
BOOKSTORE

1125 Amsterdam Ave.
Opp- Colombia Univ.
New York 25, N. Y.

miiiiiMim

FOR VICTORY IN PEACEFUL COMPETITION
WITH CAPITALISM

FOR VICTORY

IN PEACEFUL

COMPETITION

WITH CAPITALISM

With a Special Introduction Written
For the American Edition

Nikita S. Khrushchev

E. P. DUTTON & CO., INC.

NEW YORK I960

First published in the United States of America, 1960
by E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc.

FOR VICTORY IN PEACEFUL COMPETITION
WITH CAPITALISM

3ts KHnra He npe#Ha3HaqajiacB cneuHajiBHO #jih aMepHKaHCKoro wl-
TaiejiH. OHa npescTaBJineT codoio cdopHHK BHCTymieHHM m 3aHBJieHHii,
caezaHHbix Ha npoTmseHHH 1958 ro#a no pa3JiH^HHM BonpocaM MessayHapos-
Horo noJi02KeHMH is. BHeuiHefl nojiHTHKH uoBeicKoro uoio3a. ^PiTaTejEB MoaeT

n03HaK0MHTLCH C TeM, qTO BOJIHOBaJIO HaC, COBeTCKHX JIIOfleM, b Te^eHHe

3Toro nepnosa, KaK bociiphhhm8jih m oiieHoajm mh BajKHefiiune MeaayHapoa-

HBie COC&ITHH.

Bo Bcex cTpanax, b tom qncjie b CoeawiieHHHx Iiaiax, bhxosht He-
Majio KHHr o CoBeTCKOM CoK)3e, o KOimyHHSMe, ero uejinx h npHHipnax.
Heiiajio aBTopoB b noie jmu.a CBoero TpyamcH Has Ten, qTodbi H3BpaTiiT£
HCTHHHHe uejm cobctckom nosKTHKH, HaMepeHHH coHMajiiicTHqecKMX rocy-
3apcTB, IIoaTOMy ocodeHHO BascHO, ^Todbi qHTaTeJiB y3Haji npaBfly o coBeT-
ckom cTpaHe, o ee BHenmeS nojiHTMKe, o K0MMyHH3Me«

OTKpHToe h qecTHoe M3Ji03KeHHe B3rJiHflOB - nepBemuee ycjiOBue ao-
CTHKeHHH B3aHMonoHHMaHHH Messy HapoaaMH, a cTajio dHTB h yciaHOBJie-
Him coTpyannqecTBa Messy hhmh. B ocodeHHOCTH sto HeodxosuMo b co-
BpeMeHHOM MeawyHapoflHoH odcTaHOBKe, HejioBe^ecTBO nosouuio k TaKOMy
MOMeHTy, Korsa Haposbi ctoht nepes BbidopoM: jindo Mnpnoe cocymecTBO-
BaHne rocysapcTB c pa3JiH^HHM coHHaJiBHHM CTpoeM, JiHdo KaTacTpognue-
cKan asepHafl BofiHa.

B npesJiaraeMOH BHHMaHHD aMepHicaHCKoro ^HTaTeJiH KHHre rjiaBHoe
MecTO npHHaflJiesnT odocHOBaHHK HeodxosHMOCTM m bo3mojkhocth MHpnoro
cocyiaecTBOBaHHH h inipHoro copeBHOBaHHH rocysapcTB c pa3jnmHHM co-

HMaJIBHLIM CTpoeM - C.OItHaJIHCTH^eCKHM H KailHTaJIHCTimeCKHM. Pa3JinqHHe

odmecTBeHHLie chct6mh cymecTByioT Ha 3eMJie m HHKysa Hejn>3H yftTH ot
3Toro $aKTa. IS. nocKOJiBKy sto TaK, coxpaHeHne impa bo3mokho jihiub Ha
ocuoBe MiipHoro cocymecTBOBaHHH is. coTpysHMqecTBa rocysapcTB, He3aBH-
CHMO OT MMeiOIItHXCH HLGKPJ HHMH nseojiornqecKHX pa3HorjiacHfi.

Hh 0£HH HapOS He XO^eT BOMHH. OCOdeHHO CTpaCTHO CTpeMHTCH K MH-

py coBeTCKHM HapoSo BoMHa npoTHBHa HaniHM yde&seHHHM, ryMaHHCTH^ecKOM
npnpose coiiHajiHCTHqecKoro ctpoh. KaK h TenepB Mory cysHTB no immnm
HadJiioseHHHM, rpoMa^Hoe dojr&iiiHHCTBO auepHKaHCKoro Haposa Taiace HacTpo-

eHO MHpOJIIOdHBO H CTpeMHTCH H3(5eKaTL BOMHLIo

INTRODUCTION TO THE AMERICAN EDITION

This book is a collection of speeches and statements made
in the course of 1958 on various questions relating to the
international situation and foreign policy of the Soviet Union.
Although it was not especially intended for American
readers, they will be able to learn from it what we Soviet
people were preoccupied with during that period, and how
we reacted to and evaluated the most important international
events.

Quiet a few books on the Soviet Union, on communism
and its objectives and principles, are published in all coun-
tries, including the United States. Quite a few authors are
working feverishly to distort the true aims of the Soviet
foreign policy and the intentions of the socialist states. It is
especially important, therefore, that the reader should learn
the truth about the Soviet Union and her foreign policy, and
about communism.

A forthright and honest exposition of views is the first
and foremost condition for reaching understanding between
nations and, consequently, for establishing cooperation
between them. This is especially necessary in the contempo-
rary international situation. Mankind has approached a time
when the peoples are faced with a choice— either peaceful
coexistence of states with different social systems, or a dis-
astrous nuclear war.

This book offered for the attention of the American reader
is mainly devoted to the substantiation of the necessity and
possibility of peaceful coexistence and peaceful competition
between states with different social systems— socialist and
capitalist. Different social systems exist on earth, and one
cannot get away from this fact. And since this is so, the
preservation of peace is possible solely on the basis of
peaceful coexistence and the cooperation of states, irrespec-
tive of ideological differences that exist between them.

No nation wants war. The desire for peace is particularly
strong with the Soviet people. War is alien to our convictions,
to the humane nature of the socialist system. As I can now
judge by my personal observations, the overwhelming major-
ity of the American people are also peace-minded and are
striving to avoid war.

Instead of military conflicts between states, we offer the
prospect of peaceful competition, primarily in the economic
field, but also in scientific, technical, cultural and all other
fields. We stand for honest competition in peaceful pursuits,
without some countries' interfering in the internal affairs of
others. Who will produce more goods for peaceful needs?

rho will create better conditions for the development of
technology, science and culture? Which social system offers
greater opportunities for developing the productive forces
and for meeting the spiritual needs of the people? Whose
people will have higher living standards? This is, in the
main, the essence of the competition. Such competition does
not at all rule out cooperation between countries, but on
the contrary, implies it. Competition in the development of
economy, technology and culture harms no one.

With each retaining its convictions, we can find a broad
field for cooperation wherein our interests coincide. The
averting of a nuclear war, the development of international

vin

trade without any discrimination, the exchange of achieve-
ments in the sphere of science and culture— is it not a noble
field for cooperation? We are firmly convinced that in the
long run common sense will prevail in international rela-
tions. Peaceful coexistence of states with different social
systems is in our day both an imperative necessity dictated by
the correlation of forces at present in the international arena,
and the only reasonable course for all mankind. It is time
to pass in international affairs from the thousands of years
old, savage ways of behavior based on violence, to new forms
of relations between states worthy of the intellect of contem-
porary man and of his magnificent achievements in har-
nessing the forces of nature.

The Soviet Government is doing all it can for the sake of
preserving peace and developing cooperation among states
on the basis of peaceful coexistence. Expressing the interests
of the entire nation, the Soviet Government is striving for
the improvement of relations and for the development of
friendly cooperation with all states, irrespective of their
social systems. It is with these aims that we submitted our
proposals on general and complete disarmament, and we
will spare no effort so that genuine disarmament may be-
come a fact.

Is there any need to prove how important it is that our
countries— the Soviet Union and the United States of Amer-
ica—and our peoples, the Soviet and American peoples,
should better understand and trust each other? This is neces-
sary if we want to live in peace, cooperating to the mutual
benefit of our nations. Mutual distrust, suspicion and fear
are poor advisers not only in relations between individuals,
but still more so in relations between states.

Recently, a number of good and useful steps have been
made which are contributing to a rapprochement between

the USSR and the USA. I believe that the exchange of visits
between the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the
USSR and the President of the United States will contribute
to the improvement of relations between our two countries
and also to the improvement of the international atmosphere
as a whole. It is with pleasure that I recall the days of my
stay in the United States when I came to know still better
the enterprising and industrious American people.

I hope that this book will help the American readers
to understand better the noble and peaceful aims of the
foreign policy of the Soviet state.

Moscow N. KHRUSHCHEV // 6H^S^S

November, 1959 'It//

warn

N. S. KHRUSHCHEV'S SPEECH
FOLLOWING HIS RETURN TO MOSCOW

The following is the full text of the speech made by
N. S. Khrushchev at a meeting of the working people
of Moscow in the Palace of Sports in Moscow on Sep-
tember 28, 1959.

Dear comrades, we have only just left the plane which
completed a non-stop flight from Washington to Moscow. We
have come straight to you, dear Muscovites, to share with you
our impressions and to tell you about the results of our visit
to the United States of America undertaken at the invita-
tion of the President of the United States, D wight D. Eisen-
hower.

In accepting his invitation, we proceeded from the fact
that the international situation and the relations between our
states, two Great Powers— the Soviet Union and the United
States, have long been in a state of tension.

To continue this state of affairs means to perpetuate a situ-
ation fraught with all kinds of surprises, with grave conse-
quences for our peoples and the peoples of all the world.
This is why the most farsighted statesmen of several coun-
tries have come to realize the need of making some sort of
effort to end the "cold war," to do away with the tension
which has developed in international relations, to clear the
atmosphere and create more or less normal relations among
states. Then the nations would be able to live and look into
the future without fearing for their destinies.

The twentieth century is a century of the greatest flourish-
ing of human thought and genius. In our time people create
with their own hands the things that mankind dreamed of
for centuries, expressing these dreams in tales, which seemed
to be sheer fantasy.

xin

Must we, in this period of the flourishing of human genius
which is penetrating the secrets of nature and harnessing its
mighty forces, put up with the preservation of relations that
existed between people when man was still a beast?

If in those distant times these relations could be explained
by man's being in the first stage of his development and dif-
fering but little from animals, today, when man has reached
an unparalleled level in the development of his scientific
knowledge and subordinates, step by step, the forces of nature
to his will, making them serve society, today nothing can
justify the preservation of such relations as existed between
primitive people.

Our time can and should become a time of the realiza-
tion of great ideals, a time of peace and progress.

The Soviet Government realized this long ago. Precisely
for this reason we have repeatedly offered the Great Powers
to arrange a summit meeting so as to exchange views on
urgent international problems. When we made these propos-
als, we believed in man's reason. We believed that, given a
wise approach, the proponents of various political views,
countries with different social systems, will be able to find
a common language so as to resolve correctly and in the
interests of consolidating peace the contemporary problems
that alarm all mankind.

In our age of great technical progress, in conditions when
there are states with different social systems, international
problems cannot be resolved successfully otherwise than on
principles of peaceful coexistence. There is no other way.

Those people who say they do not understand what peace-
ful coexistence is and are fearful of it contribute, willingly
or unwillingly, to the further development of the cold war
which will certainly extend if we do not interfere and stop

xiv

it. It will reach a pitch where a spark might result capable
of producing a world war.

Much would perish in this war. It would be too late to
discuss what peaceful coexistence means when the talking
will be done by such frightful means of destruction as atomic
and hydrogen bombs, as ballistic rockets which are practically
impossible to locate and which are capable of delivering
nuclear warheads to any part of the globe. To disregard this
is to shut one's eyes, stop one's ears and bury one's head
as the ostrich does when in danger.

But if we people imitate the ostrich and hide our head
in sand, the question will arise: What is the use of having
this head if it is unable to avert the threat to its very life?

No, we must display the reason of man, confidence in this
reason, confidence in the possibility of reaching agreement
with statesmen of different countries, and mobilize people by
joint efforts to avert the war danger. It is necessary to have
the will power and courage to go against those who persist
in continuing the cold war. It is necessary to bar the road
to it, to thaw the ice and normalize international relations.

I must say from this high platform to the Muscovites, to
all our people, the government and the Party: that President
Dwight Eisenhower of the United States has displayed wise
statesmanship in assessing the present international situation,
that he has displayed courage and will power.

Despite the complexity of the situation which prevails in
the United States, he, the person who enjoys the full confi-
dence of his people, has come out with a proposal to exchange
visits between the heads of government of our two countries.
We give our due to this important initiative aimed at con-
solidating peace.

Undertaking this step, he was confident that we would
accept the hand he offered us, since we have repeatedly

^™

approached both President Eisenhower and the other heads
of government on this question. And the President of the
United States was not mistaken.

Dear comrades, I report to you with satisfaction that we
have fulfilled a part of the agreement with President Eisen-
hower on the exchange of visits. Availing ourselves of the
President's kind invitation, we have undertaken a trip to the
United States and have had important meetings and talks
there.

I should like to share with you my impressions of this trip
and speak briefly about its results.

I think it is best to tell you everything as it was. The truer
the account, the better it will be for the strengthening of
relations between the people of our two countries. It would
be incorrect to say that all outstanding questions are resolved
after our tour of some American cities, after our meetings
and talks with many Americans. Only a politically blind
person could think that it will be as he says.

No, one visit or one tour is not enough to resolve ques-
tions of such importance; this calls for great efforts.

Many more meetings will be necessary to achieve full
understanding, to achieve what always has been the aim of
our Party, our people, our Soviet state— to insure peaceful
coexistence between states with different ways of life and
to insure the security of the peoples on the basis of noninter-
ference in each other's internal affairs.

I want to tell you how we felt when we first set foot on
the soil of the United States of America.

To tell you frankly, my feelings were mixed. The point is
that immediately after the announcement of an exchange of
visits, many press organs and some leaders in the United
States launched a propaganda campaign against my coming
to the United States. They created an atmosphere that did

xvi

not warm me even though the temperature in the United
States is considerably higher than in Moscow. They wanted to
meet me with a cold shower.

I was particularly disappointed when, flying from Mos-
cow to Washington, I read Vice President Nixon's statement
timed for my visit. He had chosen an audience which, seem-
ingly, could not be suspected of any belligerency. It was the
American Dental Association. However, Mr. Nixon's speech
was by no means of medical significance. He, so to say, added
cold to the toothache. It seems that he was afraid lest a thaw
should really set in, lest the cold war should really end. I do
not understand why this was needed.

However, when we arrived in Washingon, we were given
a welcome which was worthy of our great country, our great
people. President Eisenhower must be given his due: he did
everything that had to be done for a welcome at this level.
You certainly have read in the papers what a welcome was
given to us in the United States capital and what a speech
was made by the President.

I am not going to repeat myself: it was a warm welcome.

Shortly after our arrival in Washington I met the President
at the White House. Also present were Vice President Nixon
and Secretary of State Herter. I have a somewhat restless
character and I am a blunt man, so I asked in our very first
conversation— though it may not perhaps have been very
diplomatic— why the Vice President had found it necessary
to make such a statement on the eve of my arrival. I will
not speak of the unfriendly statements and articles by people
of lesser standing.

The President said he had not read Nixon's statement. I
told him then that it need not be read as it was already a
matter of the past. This is one small thing which shows in

xvn

some measure the preparations made to receive the guest from
across the sea.

Another thing. You Muscovites, as indeed all Soviet people
—the Russians, Ukrainians, Byelorussians, Uzbeks, Geor-
gians, Kazakhs, Armenians, all peoples— always give a worthy
welcome to your guests. Whatever country your guest may
represent, whatever his political convictions may be, we meet
him with bread and salt because he is our guest, and we show
him inner, and not merely outward, respect. But there, in
the United States, I witnessed the following thing on the first
day: We were riding in a car with the President. There were
huge crowds of people. Some raised their hands and waved
but— I saw this— jerked the hands back quickly as if from a
live wire.

It was difficult for me to understand this at first. I decided
to look more attentively at the faces of the people standing
along both sides of our route. I began to greet people by slight
nods and many of them replied. What was the matter then?

I was told afterward that ten minutes before we drove with
the President to the White House, an unknown automobile
had passed along our route with a poster saying, "Welcome
the guest worthily, politely, but without applause or greetings."

Afterward I asked the President's representative, Mr.
Lodge, who accompanied me during the tour of the United
States, whether that was true. It was explained that there
actually had been such a car, but it was allegedly unknown
to whom it belonged. You see, it had broken through the
police cordon. When the officials gave me this explanation, I
told them I could not imagine how the police, which guarded
me so well, failed to notice the car carrying such a poster.

I am sure that the President did not know anything about
this and that all this was done contrary to the wishes of the
President and the others who organized our welcome. How-

xvni

ever, as the saying goes, words cannot be cut out from a song.
From the very first steps on American soil I was so closely
guarded that it was absolutely impossible to contact the ordi-
nary Americans. This guarding turned into a sort of house
arrest. I was taken around in a closed car and could see the
people welcoming us only through its window. But the people
waved and shouted, though very often they could not see
me. I am far from taking all the feelings of friendship which
were expressed by the American people as referring to myself
or even to our Communist ideology.

The Americans told us in these greetings that, like us, they
held by the positions of struggle for peace, for friendship
between our peoples.

I am not going to speak in detail about all our meetings
with the Americans. You apparently know about them from
the papers. We visited Washington and then New York, where
I had the honor to submit to the United Nations, on behalf
of the Soviet Government, a plan for general and complete
disarmament.

From New York we went to the West Coast of the United
States, to Los Angeles and San Francisco, and then to Iowa
and to Pittsburgh, a major industrial center in Pennsylvania.
Finally, we returned to Washington. It was a big trip. We
saw various parts of the United States and met people of
various stripes. We had many good meetings and frank con-
versations. But there also were meetings of a different kind.

On the first half of our trip we noticed that the same record
was played over and over again. Speakers everywhere asserted
that I had once said that we would "bury the capitalists."
At first, I patiently explained that I really had said this, that
we would "bury capitalism" in the sense that socialism would
inevitably supersede this moribund social form as capitalism,
in its time, had superseded feudalism. But then I saw that

xix

the people who stubbornly repeated these questions did not
need explanations. They had a definite aim, that of using
communism to intimidate people who had only a vague notion
of what it is.

I finally had to speak my mind when at a reception in
Los Angeles, the Mayor of the city, who was no worse than
the other mayors but less diplomatic perhaps, started to say
the same thing all over again.

I said: "Do you want to organize an unfriendly demon-
stration for me in every city, at every meeting? If you are
going to receive me in this way then, as the Russian saying
goes, 'It is not hard to turn back from the gate.' If you are
not yet ready for talks, if you have not yet realized the need
for liquidating the cold war and fear lest it should be liqui-
dated, if you want to continue, we can wait; the wind is not
blowing in our faces either. We have both enough patience
and enough wisdom. Things are going well in our country.
Our people have time and again displayed such reason, such
strength, such will and such ability to overcome the difficul-
ties that it will be able to stand up for the country and for
the cause of peace. They will reply worthily if the forces of
aggression attempt to test us by the bayonet."

I had to enter into diplomatic negotiations then. I asked
the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Comrade Gromyko, to go
and tell the President's representative, Mr. Lodge, who was
accompanying me, that if things were not righted I would
not find it possible to continue the trip and would have to
return to Washington and then to Moscow.

All this seemed to have produced its effect. Mr. Lodge told
me through Gromyko that he recommeded that I go on to
San Francisco and other cities on our itinerary and that the
local authorities would take measures to prevent any recur-
rence of this.

I must tell you that these negotiations through Comrade
Gromyko took place at night, and when I awoke in the morn-
ing, everything had indeed changed.

And when we left Los Angeles for San Francisco, I was,
figuratively speaking, "uncuffed" and permitted to leave the
railroad coach and meet people. People shook my hands, and
I replied to their handshakes, they applauded and smiled just
as you Muscovites smile when welcoming guests, rejoicing
at their arrival and doing everything possible to make the
guests feel as one should.

When we came to San Francisco, the sun shone brightly
and it was a fine day, the kind we have in summer. The climate
of this remarkable city was absolutely different— we were warm
from the sun, but even warmer from the cordial unrestrained
welcome given us.

We are exceptionally thankful to the Mayor of San Fran-
cisco, Mr. Christopher; to the Governor of California, Mr.
Brown; the people of San Francisco, all those who approached
with understanding our visit, the visit of peace and friendship
between our two peoples, among the peoples of all countries.

We were given every opportunity to meet and talk with
the common people. True, we did not have enough strength
for this, but this was due to the short duration of our stay.
Honestly speaking, this dispelled our suspicions about the
evil intentions of the local authorities. We immediately estab-
lished good contacts with the residents of that big and
beautiful city.

I wish to note particularly the meeting with the longshore-
men. The head of the Pacific Coast Longshoremen's Union,
Mr. Bridges, invited me and my companions to come and
converse with the dockers. This was a heartfelt meeting.
Among the longshoremen, ordinary and sincere people that
they are, I felt as though I was among Soviet workers. The

xxi

greetings I conveyed to them from the Soviet workers were
received with enthusiasm, and they asked me to convey their
greetings in reply.

I also remember the visit to a factory producing calculat-
ing machines in San Jose, near San Francisco. Its manager,
Mr. Watson, the workers and employees met us cordially
and showed us all the complex production processes, making
all explanations in Russian— a touching forethought. The fac-
tory itself, its layout and the organization of production made
a very good impression.

One of the people making the explanation had a slight
Ukrainian accent, and I asked him (in Ukrainian): "And
what is your name?"

He replied: "Marchenko."

I said: "How do you do. Are your parents living?"

He said: "Yes."

"My best regards to them."

He thanked me.

But our stay in hospitable San Francisco was drawing to
a close and we were to fly to another American city, Des
Moines, in Iowa. It is one of the main centers of agricultural
production in the United States.

After a warm meeting with the governor of the state, the
mayor of the city and representatives of business and public
circles, we went out of town to the corn fields, so dear to my
heart. And I must tell you that the Americans know how
to grow corn. It is all planted in squares and the fields are
in good condition.

True, even there, on the farm of a great authority on corn,
my old acquaintance (Roswell) Garst, I found some short-
comings. The corn was planted too densely in clusters and I,
of course, called his attention to this, friendly like.

We enjoyed the lavish hospitality of our host, Mr. Garst,

xxn

who arranged for us an interesting meeting with farmers.
There we also met the noted Democratic leader Adlai Steven-
son, who had come from Chicago, and our conversation with
him was very frank and friendly.

Another thing comes to mind. When we arrived at the
University (of Iowa), one of the young people gave me a
student newspaper. It carried a big article in which the stu-
dents, as I was told, welcomed our arrival. It said, however,
that the students would meet us without enthusiasm, without
cheers. But what happened? The students in whose name the
article had been written, those young people thirsting for life,
displayed as much enthusiasm as our youth.

They shouted, applauded and expressed their feelings in
a most lively way. There were shouts, "Comrade Khrushchev,"
"Nikita" and other simple words coming from the heart.

I must also tell you about the warm welcome given us by
the people of one of America's biggest industrial centers, the
city of metallurgists and machine builders, the people of
Pittsburgh.

They displayed a great friendliness and respect for us. I
even felt a little uncomfortable when I drove from the air-
port to the city. We arrived in Pittsburgh at midnight. The
night was dark, but as we went to the city, there were cars
standing along the entire route, there were people, and I saw
their smiles and heard their greetings.

In Pittsburgh we visited a machine-building plant of the
Mesta Company.

We felt that the plant's management did everything to show
us this undertaking, to let us see the working conditions there.
We made the rounds of the plant and conversed with workers.
I wish to stress one thing: When we entered, the greetings
were restrained. However, the more we talked to the workers,

xxm

the warmer the meeting became, and the workers loudly
expressed their sentiments of respect for us, representatives
of the Soviet Union, of the Soviet people.

I also carried away the memory of my meeting with the
business men and intellectuals of Pittsburgh, which was held
at the local university. As usual a dinner was given there
during which speeches were made that differed from the
others, and in which, as it seemed to me, the need for the
establishing of friendly relations between our two countries
was presented with a more realistic understanding.

Listening to my speech, some people may think that in
describing these friendly meetings Khrushchev has drawn the
curtain on hostile demonstrations. No, I do not intend to hush
up facts of hostile or unfriendly attitudes toward us. Yes,
there were such facts. You should know that just as the
American newsmen were my "sputniks" during the tour of
the United States, fascist refugees from different countries
moved from city to city, flourishing their few miserable
posters. We have also met hostile and grim American faces.

There were very many good things, but the bad should
not be forgotten either. This worm, and a big one for that
matter, is still alive and may show its vitality in the future, too.

Why do I say this? Is it that I wish to cool the relations
between the Soviet Union and the United States? No.

I speak of this because you ought to know the truth, so
that you should see not only the side that is pleasant to us,
but also the other, behind-the-scenes, side, which should not
be concealed. There are forces in the United States working
against us and against the easing of tension, for the con-
tinuation of the cold war. To disregard this would mean show-
ing weakness in the struggle against these evil forces, against
these evil spirits.

No, they must be exposed, they must be shown to the world,

xxiv

publicly whipped, they must be subjected to the torments
of Hades. Let those who want to continue the cold war be
angry. They will not be supported by the common people of
the world, they will not be supported by reasonable people.

The trip to Pittsburgh rounded off our tour of the United
States.

Concluding my account of the trip across that country, I
should like to express our sincere gratitude to the mayors
of the cities and the governors of the states that we visited,
representatives of the business quarters and intellectuals, per-
sonnel of enterprises and universities, workers and farmers,
all the representatives of public organizations. I should like
to note, particularly, the splendid work done by the Mayor
of New York, Mr. Wagner; the Mayor of San Francisco, Mr.
Christopher; the Mayor of Pittsburgh, Mr. Gallagher; the
Governor of Pennsylvania, David Lawrence; rector of Pitts-
burgh University, Mr. Litchfield; rector of Iowa University,
Edward Hilton; representatives of the business quarters, Eric
Johnston, Robert Bowling, Cyrus Eaton, Thomas Watson,
Frank Mesta, Roswell Garst and others.

The numerous gifts presented to us were a remarkable
manifestation of respect for our country, its great people.
The Mayors of New York and Pittsburgh presented us with
symbolic keys of their cities.

By the way, I told them: "I accept these keys as a symbol
of trust. You can rest assured, I promise you, that these keys
will never be used without the permission of the masters."

The International Harvester Company presented us with
a film on the mechanization of corn growing, President
Eisenhower presented us with a pedigreed calf from his
private farm, Admiral Strauss with a calf and steer, farmer
Coolidge with a pedigreed hog. We received many other
presents, for which we are grateful.

xxv

I wish to note that in the main the American press, radio
and television covered our stay in the United States without
bias. Of course, there were unfriendly sallies of individual
newsmen, but they did not set the tone in the American press.

During the tour of the United States, my companions and
I were accompanied by Mr. Lodge, personal representative
of the United States President; Mr. Buchanan, State Depart-
ment chief of protocol; Mr. Thompson, the United States
Ambassador to the USSR; their wives and other officials. I
must thank them, and particularly Mr. Lodge. He went out
of his way to make our trip pleasant and to acquaint us with
the life of the great people of the United States.

I jokingly said to Mr. Lodge: "If I, a representative of the
working class, of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union,
and he, a representative of the capitalist world, were, by
chance, abandoned on an uninhabited island, we would find
a common language and insure peaceful coexistence there.
Why, then, cannot the states with different social systems
insure coexistence? Our states are also, so to say, on an
island: After all, with the present-day means of communica-
tion, which have brought the continents so close together,
our planet really resembles a small island, and we should
realize this. Having understood the need of coexistence, we
should pursue a peaceful policy, live in friendship, cease
brandishing arms and destroy them.

Comrades, on Sept. 25 we again met with the United
States President at the White House and left with him by
helicopter for his country residence, which is called Camp
David. We stayed there for Sept. 25, 26 and 27. We had
frank, friendly talks and explained the positions of our
governments on basic international problems as well as on
questions related to the improvement of Soviet- American re-
lations. Taking part in these meetings and conversations were

xxvi

Mr. Herter, Secretary of State of the United States, and
Comrade Gromyko, the Soviet Foreign Minister, as well as
the other comrades that accompanied me. And they surely
did a useful piece of work.

The chief outcome of the exchange of views with the
United States President is recorded in the joint communique,
which was published by today's papers. There can be no
doubt that this document will be received with satisfaction
by all those who are interested in consolidating peace.

It should be taken into account, however, that we could
not, of course, clear out with the President in one try all the
cold- war rubble that has piled up during many years. It will
take time to clear out this rubbish, and not only clear it out,
but destroy it. Things dividing us are still too fresh in the
memory. Sometimes it is difficult for certain statesmen to
give up the old positions, the old views and formulas.

But I will tell you with all frankness, dear comrades, that
I got the impression from the talks and discussions of con-
crete questions with the United States President that he sin-
cerely wants to end the state of cold war, to create normal
relations between our two countries, to promote the improve-
ment of relations among all states.

Peace is indivisible now, it cannot be ensured by the
efforts of two or three countries only. So we must fight for
peace in such a way that all the nations, all the countries, are
drawn into this struggle.

We exchanged views with the United States President on
questions of disarmament. He said that the United States
Government was studying our proposal and that the United
States, just as we, wanted complete disarmament under due
control.

It seems that there is now no reason for delaying the
solution of this question but, on the other hand, the question

xxvn

of disarmament is so serious that we should not press our
partners for its solution. The question must be studied, of
course, so as to find a solution, which would really create
an atmosphere of trust and insure disarmament and peaceful
coexistence among states.

So let us not make hurried statements, let us be patient
and give the statesmen time to consider our proposals. But
we shall not sit on our hands, we shall advocate the need of
complete universal disarmament.

We regard our proposals as a basis for agreement. We
are ready to discuss any amendments to our document, to
our proposals. We are ready to discuss other proposals, too,
if they are submitted for the purpose of attaining the same
goals as ours.

We exchanged views with the President on the German
question also, on the question of concluding a peace treaty.
We tried to prove, and I think we were successful in this, that
our proposals concerning the peace treaty were incorrectly
interpreted in the West.

Some people tried to stir up unnecessary excitement by
saying that they are an ultimatum, etc. Those who acted in
this way were obviously guided by a desire to prolong the
cold war. They went so far as to claim that our proposals on
the peace treaty with Germany were something short of a
declaration of war. It surely takes some nerve to distort the
peaceloving position of the Soviet Union in such a way.

We also exchanged views on the holding of a summit
meeting. Both President Eisenhower and I set forth the
positions of our two governments and agreed that this meet-
ing is necessary and useful.

We discussed with the United States President the date of
his reply visit to the Soviet Union.

At first, the President planned to come to the Soviet Union

xxviii

at the end of October this year. However, he asked me what
was the best time for travelling in our country. I began
thinking. We Muscovites like Moscow the year round.

But for us, as for all people, spring is the most pleasant
time of the year, because it is the time of joy, of the lush
flourishing and awakening of life. So, I told him that, to my
mind, it was best to come here at the end of May or early in
June. It would be good if the President took along with him
his wife, son, his son's wife, and grandchildren. We should
be happy also to welcome the President's brother, who came
to our country together with Mr. Nixon.

The President was kind enough to invite me to his farm.

He showed me his corn fields, I could not miss the chance
of seeing the President's corn, of course. I also was shown the
heifers and steers at the President's farm. Handsome animals
they were. I must say, however, that it is not a large farm
for the President to have, considering the greatness and
wealth of his country. It is not a rich farm and the soil there
is not too good. But the President said he wanted to put some
work into it, to improve the soil and leave something behind
to be remembered for.

At the farm I made friends with the President's grand-
children and held a conference with them. I asked them
whether they wanted to come to Russia. They all, big and
small, declared they wanted to come to Russia. The Presi-
dent's oldest grandson is 1 1 years old and the smallest grand-
daughter is 3 or 4 years of age. So I have won their support.

I told the President jokingly that it was easier to agree on
a reply visit with his grandchildren than with him because
his grandchildren have a good environment while he, obvi-
ously, is confronted with some obstacles which do not allow
him to realize this desire of his in the spirit and at the time
he prefers.

xxix

I wish to tell you, dear comrades, that I do not doubt the
President's intention to exert his will and efforts to reach
agreement between our two countries, to create friendly
relations between our nations and to solve the urgent prob-
lems in the interests of consolidating peace.

At the same time I got the impression that there are forces
in America which do not work in the same direction as the
President.

These forces are for the continuation of the cold war and
for the arms race. I would not be in a hurry to say whether
these forces are large or small, influential or not influential,
and whether the forces supporting the President-and he is
backed by the absolute majority of the American people-
can win.

Time is a good adviser, or as the Russian people say,
"Take counsel of one's pillow." This is a wise saying. Let us
do this, the more so since we have arrived in the afternoon
and it is in the evening that I am speaking now. It will take
perhaps several such counsels before we clear this up. But
we shall not rest idle while waiting for the dawn, we shall not
wait to see which way the international relations tilt.

For our part we shall do everything we can to tilt the
barometer's hand away from "Storm" and even from
"Changeable" to show "Fine."

I am confident, comrades, that in the present conditions,
when the forces of peace have grown immensely, when the
socialist camp has some one billion people and tremendous
productive potential, when the Soviet Union has reached
great heights in industry and agriculture, science, technology
and culture, we can do a lot for the sake of peace.

In our actions we rely on reason, on truth, on the support

of all the people. Moreover, we rely on our great potential.

And let it be known to those who want to continue the

xxx

cold war so as to turn it sooner or later into a shooting war,
that in our time only a madman can start a war and he him-
self will perish in its flames.

The people must strait- jacket these madmen. We believe
that sound statesmanship and human genius will triumph.
Citing Pushkin: "Hail reason, down with obscurity!"

Dear Muscovites! We are boundlessly happy to return
home, to see the faces of the Soviet people which are so dear
to our hearts.

Long live the great Soviet people, who are successfully
building communism under the leadership of the glorious
Leninist party!

Long live Soviet- American friendship!

Long live friendship among all the peoples of the world!

xxxi

FOR VICTORY IN PEACEFUL COMPETITION
WITH CAPITALISM

CONTENTS

Page

Introduction to the American Edition v«

N. S. Khrushchev's Speech Following His Return to Moscow . xiii

Exchange of Letters Between C. Rajagopalachari and
N. S. Khrushchov 9

Replies to Questions Put by V. Sinnbeck, Editor of Dansk
Folkestyre, Journal of Youth Organization of Danish Venstre
Party 21

Some Aspects of International Situation. Speech at Conference
of Front-Rank Agricultural Workers of Byelorussian Republic,
January 22, 1958 39

Interview Given to Axel Springer, West German Publisher, and

Hans Zehrer, Editor of Die Welt, January 29, 1958 ... 67

Interview Given to I. McDonald, Foreign Editor of The Times

January 31, 1958 ' §5

Replies to Questions Put by Manuel Mejido, Correspondent

of Mexican Newspaper Excelsior, February 21, 1958 ... 106

Letter to Bertrand Russell, March 5, 1958 HI

Replies to Questions Put by Trybuna Ludu, March 10, 1958 . 137

Speech at Meeting of Electors of Kalinin Constituency, Moscow

March 14, 1958 _ 155

Interview Given to Correspondent of Le Figaro, March 19, 1958 193
Interview Given to Eric Ridder, Owner and Publisher of Journal
of Commerce, and Its Editor Heinz Luedicke March 22

1958 .' 213

Replies to Questions Put by Giuseppe Palozzi, // Tempo Cor-
respondent, March 24, 1958 231

Speech at Budapest Airport on Arrival of Soviet Party and

Government Delegation in Hungary, April 2, 1958 . . . . 24S

Speech at Meeting in Budapest in Celebration of 13th Anni-
versary of Hungary's Liberation, April 3, 1958 . . . . 251

Speech at Mass Meeting in Budapest During Stay in Hungary
of Soviet Party and Government Delegation, April 4, 1958 . 268

Speech at Meeting in Cegled During Stay in Hungary of Soviet

Party and Government Delegation, April 7, 1958 . ... 280

Speech at Mass Meeting in Tatabanya During Stay in Hungary
of Soviet Party and Government Delegation, April 8, 1958 290

Speech at Soviet Embassy Reception in Budapest During Stay
in Hungary of Soviet Party and Government Delegation,

April 8, 1958 300

Speech at Academy of Sciences of Hungarian People's Republic
During Stay in Hungary of Soviet Party and Government

Delegation, April 9, 1958 . . 3°2

Speech at Meeting of Csepel Iron and Steel Works During
Stay in Hungary of Soviet Party and Government Delega-
tion, April 9, 1958 314

Speech on Departure from Budapest of Soviet Party and Gov-
ernment Delegation, April 10, 1958 329

Speech at Meeting on Return of Soviet Party and Government

Delegation from Hungarian People's Republic, April 10, 1958 332
Speech at Embassy Reception of Polish People's Republic on
Occasion of 13th Anniversary of Soviet-Polish Treaty of
Friendship, Mutual Assistance and Post-War Co-operation,

April 21, 1958 347

Speech at Luncheon in Honour of Gamal Abdel Nasser, Presi-
dent of United Arab Republic, April 30, 1958 352

Replies to Questions Put by Greek Newspaper Publisher

•Ch. Lambrakis 360

Speech at Reception at Embassy of the United Arab Republic
in Honour of Gamal Abdel Nasser, President of U.A.R.,

May 14, 1958 371

Speech at Meeting of Friendship Between Peoples of the Soviet

Union and the United Arab Republic, May 15, 1958 ... 375
Speech at Luncheon in Honour of Finnish President, Dr. Urho

Kekkonen, May 23, 1958 3m

Speech at Meeting of Political Consultative Committee of
Warsaw Treaty, May 24, 1958 394

Message to Central Committee of Italian Communist Partv

May 31, 1958 '.'434

Speech at 7th Congress of Bulgarian Communist Party, June 3

1958 . . : 435

Reply to Mr. Cyrus S. Eaton 457

Speech at Meeting of Sofia Working People to Mark Conclusion

of 7th Congress of Bulgarian Communist Party, June 7, 1958 469

Replies to Questions Put by Editor of Melbourne Herald, John
Waters, June 11, 1958 477

Speech at Luncheon of Ambassadors of Bandung Conference
Countries in Honour of the King and Queen of Nepal
June 23, 1958 ' 50€

Speech Welcoming Antonin Novotny, First Secretary of Central
Committee of Communisjt Party of Czechoslovakia and Presi-
dent of Czechoslovak Republic, July 2, 1958 502

Speech at Grand Kremlin Palace Dinner in Honour of Comrade
Antonin Novotny, President of Czechoslovakia, July 2, 1958 505

Speech at U.S.S.R.-Czechoslovakia Friendship Meeting in
Leningrad, July 4, 1958 508

Speech on Arrival in Berlin of C.P.S.U. Delegation to 5th Con-
gress of Socialist Unity Party of Germany, July 8, 1958 . . 516

Speech at Mass Meeting in Halle During Stay of C.P.S.U.
Delegation to 5rth Congress of Socialist Unity Party of
Germany in German Democratic Republic, July 8, 1958 . . 519

Speech at Meeting Held in Palace of Culture of Bitterfeld
Electro-Chemical Works During Stay in G.D.R. of C.P.S.U.
Delegation to 5th Congress of Socialist Unity Party of
Germany, July 9, 1958 524

Speech at 5th Congress of Socialist Unity Party of Germany

July 11, 1958 .'544

Speech at Soviet-Czechoslovak Friendship Meeting of Moscow
Working People, July 12, 1958 584

Speech at Luncheon in Honour of Government Delegation of
Austrian Republic, July 22, 1958 606

Speech at Reception at Embassy of Polish People's Republic on

14th Anniversary of Day of National Renascence, July 22, 1958 609

Replies to Questions Put by Kingsbury Smith, Vice-President
and General Director of United Press International Agency,
July 22, 1958 615

Speech at Dinner Given by Embassy of Austrian Republic,

July 23, 1958 , 618

Speech at Kremlin Reception in Honour of Government Delega-
tion of Austrian Republic, July 24, 1958 620

Speech on Departure from Moscow of Government Delegation

of Austrian Republic, July 28, 1958 623

Interview with Indian Journalists, July 29, 1958 ...... 625

Replies to Questions of Pravda Correspondent on Ending of
Nuclear Weapons Tests 644

Replies to Questions Submitted by A. E. Johann, West German
Writer and Journalist, September 20, 1958 651

Replies to Questions Put by Pravda Editorial Board Concerning
Events in France 661

Replies to Questions Put by Murilo Marroquim de Souza, Bra-
zilian Journalist, October 3, 1958 670

Reply to Question of TASS Correspondent 676

Speech at Reception by Vice-President of United Arab Republic,

Marshal Abdul Hakim Amer, October 21, 1958 679

Speech at Grand Kremlin Palace Reception in Honour of Parti-
cipants of Afro-Asian Writers' Conference in Tashkent,
October 22, 1958 686

Speech at Kremlin Reception in Honour of Vice-President of
United Arab Republic, Marshal Abdul Hakim Amer, Octo-
ber 23, 1958 6°°

Speech Welcoming Polish People's Republic Delegation in

Moscow, October 25, 1958 694

.Speech at Kremlin Dinner in Honour of Polish People's Re-
public Delegation, October 25, 1958 696

Speech at Luncheon Given by Comrade Wladyslaw Gomulka,
Chairman of Polish People's Republic Delegation, October 27,
1958 698

Speech at Baltic Works Meeting During Stay in Leningrad of
Polish People's Republic Delegation, November 3, 1958 . . 701

Speech at Soviet-Polish Friendship Meeting of Leningrad Work-
ing People, November 4, 1958 712

Speech at Grand Kremlin Palace Reception in Honour of 41st
Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution,
November 7, 1958 722

Speech at Friendship Meeting of Polish People's Republic and
the Soviet Union, November 10, 1958 727

Speech on Departure from Moscow of Polish People's Republic
Delegation, November 11, 1958 747

Some Questions Concerning International Situation. From
Speech at Reception of Graduates of Military Academies,
November 14, 1958 749

Proposals of the Soviet Government on the Berlin Question.
Press Conference in Kremlin Held by N. S Khrushchov,
Chairman of the U.S.S.R. Council of Ministers, November 27,
M8 758

Replies to Questions Put by Hans Kempski, Chief Correspondent
of Suddeutsche Zeitung, German Federal Republic .... 772

EXCHANGE OF LETTERS

BETWEEN C. RAJAGOFALACHARI

AND N. S. KHRUSHCHOV

In November and December 1957 C. Rajagopalachari,
Indian public leader, and N. S. Khrushchov, First Secre-
tary of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U., exchanged
letters, the texts of which we publish below.

C. RAJAGOPALACHARI'S LETTER TO N. S. KHRUSHCHOV

Your Excellency may remember the conversation we had in Madras
when you and Mr. Bulganin visited this city. The frank and clear
statements I had the honour of hearing you and Mr. Bulganin make
in answer to my queries during that quiet private talk in the Gover-
nor's house, and the events that have happened since then encourage
me to approach you with a proposition which I trust you will not
reject out of hand as merely idealistic. It is a practical move of crea-
tive power that I am suggesting, one emerging from the very special
nature of the present moment.

Now that you have established beyond doubt the definite superior-
ity of your technical achievement and potentialities, which have
left the opposite party dumbfounded, no gesture on your part of a
peace-seeking nature can possibly be misconstructed as arising out
of a desire to cover weakness. I submit therefore that the supreme
occasion for you has arrived to declare on behalf of your country
that you not merely ask for an agreed ban on nuclear weapons, but
you will unilaterally abjure the use of those weapons in warfare.
This unqualified declaration will give the start for the moral law to
work out its chain reactions in the field of the human spirit even
as the split atom does in your atomic plants.

It is not pacifism that I am asking you to declare, but only the
abjuring of nuclear weapons. It is this new development that has
robbed war of all its gradualness which had been the all-important
automatic safeguard for peace, humanity and civilization to survive
in spite of what would otherwise be an unqualified evil. It is there-
fore this type of war and these weapons of destruction that have to
be abjured for the sake of civilization. There is a point at which
man's instruments unfortunately and without his knowing it become
his master instead of being his inanimate instrument. That danger-
ous point has been almost reached in the case of nuclear weapons.
It is necessary to halt before it is too late and to restore man's
control over his tools and prevent his becoming a helpless victim of
his own invention.

It is needless for you to point out to me the lapses of the West-
ern Powers. I know them all and I have been pointing them out
publicly. But a supreme moment has now arrived when your re-
public can attain undying glory by a great and historic step whose
moral force will be irresistible, a glory not less than Russia's heroic
defence against the might and ferocity of Hitler when she bore the
whole brunt of his attack. If this qualified and absolute declaration
I am suggesting be forthcoming from you, the West will have to bow
in awe and reverence before your moral height. It would be an
achievement in the spiritual field no less than what you have demon-
strated in technology which has extorted the admiration and envy of
the West. As you recently said in your jubilee speech in Moscow, the
pattern of competition in the future will change from one of de-
struction to the unravelling of the mysteries of nature and the pro-
motion of human welfare if you take this great creative unilateral
step without caring what others may do or not do.

I have made appeals for unilaterally abjuring nuclear weapons
to America and to Britain in the columns of the New York Times
and the Manchester Guardian. This appeal I make to you, may I say,
I make with greater hope? For as I have said already, you are in a
position of great and demonstrated strength which gives you the
status and power to make such a proud declaration.

With highest regards,

Yours sincerely,

C. RAJAGOPALACHARI

Madras-17, Tyagaroyanagor,
Bazlullah Road, GO

N. S. KHRUSHCHOV'S REPLY TO C. RAJAGOPALACHARI'S

LETTER

Madras

Your Excellency,

I was very happy to receive your letter which brought
back pleasant memories of my stay in your wonderful
country, of our talks in Madras. I remember the talk we
had during a concert, when even the superb folk dances
of India could not divert us from discussing the impor-
tant problems that preoccupy all who sincerely want to
safeguard peace.

I read your letter very carefully and I am most grate-
ful to you for it. I should like in replying to set out cer-
tain considerations regarding the proposal it contains.

We regard your suggestion that the Soviet Union con-
tribute its share to the establishment of a lasting peace
among nations as evidence of your lofty convictions, of
the great concern for peace of a prominent public leader
and statesman, whose life and energies are devoted to
the struggle for the great cause of peace.

In your letter you speak in flattering terms of our
country, of our people, of the progress they have made
and, in particular, of the achievements of Soviet sci-
ence and technology. I will not deny that we are proud of
these achievements, for they show the progress made by
a people that has won its freedom from capitalist slavery.
You know, of course, that the overwhelming majority of
the population of tsarist Russia was illiterate, that Rus-
sia was a backward peasant country with an underdevel-
oped industry. In the 40 years that have elapsed since
the Soviet system was set up our people have given free
rein to their energy and talent; they built an up-to-date
industry, reorganized agriculture along the most modern
lines and trained their own intellectuals and their own
scientists in all spheres. The construction and launching

-^— ^^-

of the world's first earth satellites was a striking demon-
stration of the achievements of our people. All this is for
us a source of pleasure and inspires us to renew our ef-
forts to attain the great goal set by the Communist Par-
ty—to build a communist society in our country, a society
in which men will really be brothers, in which everyone
will work for himself and for others to the best of his abil-
ity and in which all the people's requirements will be
met in full. The Soviet people are sparing no effort to
build such a social system.

We appreciate that concern for the destinies of the
world with which your letter is imbued. Mankind is threat-
ened with a catastrophic war of extermination on an un-
precedented scale, a war which, if it breaks out, will take
a toll of many millions of lives. This prospect is particu-
larly absurd today, when science is advancing rapidly,
when man has far greater opportunities to ease his toil
and employ the world's natural resources to meet the re-
quirements of all the peoples inhabiting our planet. It is
today perfectly possible therefore to ensure progress and
prosperity for every country and every nation on the basis
of peaceful co-existence between all states, friendly co-
operation and mutual assistance.

Today more than ever before, every honest person, and
society as a whole, must strive to find ways not only of
postponing war, but also of abolishing it for ever. This
problem cannot be completely and finally solved until man-
kind has established a society in which there will no longer
be rich and poor, in which all will be equal and all derive
equal benefit from the blessings of collective labour. It will
be what we call a communist society. We are convinced that
in the long run mankind will build such a just social
system. But that still requires a great deal of effort, be-
cause the peoples are at different stages of development
and there still are many countries where the forces that
would dominate others and live on their labour are still
strong.

Our common duty today is to prevent war. If we cannot
at the moment abolish it for ever, we can and should
create conditions enabling the peoples to live in peace,
without fear that a war of extermination will be suddenly
launched in accordance with the desires of a few madmen.

You propose that, to promote international confidence
and save mankind from the threat of a disastrous atomic
war, the Soviet Union declare its unilateral renunciation
of the use of nuclear weapons for military purposes. We
greatly appreciate the confidence that you show in us by
submitting this proposal to the Soviet Union, and we wish
we could take your advice. The Soviet Union firmly advo-
cates the condemnation and prohibition of the use of atomic
and hydrogen weapons as means of mass destruction and
calls for their removal from national armouries. We
still insist on this; we are prepared to conclude an appro-
priate agreement with other Powers at any time. It is now
up to the Governments of the United States and Britain
to decide.

I should also like to draw your attention to the fact
that at the jubilee session of the Supreme Soviet of the
U.S.S.R. in Moscow on November 6 last it was solemnly
declared on behalf of the Soviet Government and the Com-
munist Party of the Soviet Union that our people had never
thought, nor would ever think, of using any means of
destruction unless our country was attacked by imperial-
ist states. I believe that that declaration is to a consider-
able extent in line with the idea expressed in your letter.
Would it not be a major step towards eliminating the
threat of a new war if the U.S. and British governments
were in their turn to make similar official declarations?

As for the renunciation of the use of nuclear weapons
by one Power only— the Soviet Union— irrespective of the
stand taken by the other Powers possessing such weap-
ons, while we fully appreciate the motives underlying
your proposal, prompted by deep faith in the good that
is inherent in every person, we cannot forget that there

are facts and circumstances that necessitate the utmost
prudence in considering this matter.

You presume that, by unilaterally declaring that it re-
nounces nuclear weapons, the Soviet Union would set off
a moral "chain reaction" in the world and that the West
would have to do the same. I must tell you quite frankly,
however, that the facts do not warrant so optimistic a
presumption.

In this connection I cannot but mention the perfectly
correct idea, expressed in one of your articles, that the
United States cannot expect the Soviet Union to take uni-
lateral action aimed at ceasing nuclear weapons tests un-
less it itself intends to take similar action. This is still
more true as regards the renunciation of the use of nu-
clear weapons.

Can we, aware of the great responsibility we bear for
the welfare and security of the peoples of the Soviet
Union, disregard actions by the Governments of the West-
ern Powers such as the establishment of a network of
U.S. military bases along the frontiers of the Soviet Union
and of countries friendly to it, a network covering ter-
ritory belonging to dozens of European, Asian and Afri-
can countries? Have we the right to ignore the fact that
the United States and its West European allies in the
NATO military bloc are doing their utmost to make atom-
ic and hydrogen weapons the key element in their armour-
ies, and indeed say so officially?

It is well known, furthermore, that the chief item to be
discussed by the forthcoming December meeting of the
NATO Council is the roles that the members of the bloc
will have to play in preparing an atomic and hydrogen
war. The Governments of the United States, Britain and
other Western countries persist in rejecting even such meas-
ures as the immediate and unconditional suspension of
atomic and hydrogen weapons tests on terms equal for
all parties.

As we think of all this we fear that if the Soviet Union

were to declare its unilateral renunciation of nuclear
weapons, those governments with evil intentions vis-a-vis
our country, far from following suit, blinded by their
hatred for our new system and all that we are creating,
would be tempted to take advantage of the resultant weak-
ening of the Soviet Union's defences. They might attack
our country with atomic and hydrogen weapons in order
to wipe out the socialist gains which the Soviet people
have achieved as a result of thein tremendous exertions.
We consider the achievements of the Soviet people to be
not only our achievements, but also those of all progres-
sive mankind, of all those who want to build human re-
lations on the principles of equality, mutual assistance
and respect.

Well knowing that once the Soviet Union has pledged
its word it keeps it faithfully and never goes back on it,
the aggressive circles of the Western Powers would react
to our unilateral commitment to refrain from the use of
nuclear weapons by building up their stocks of such weap-
ons even more vigorously in order to gain superiority
and then confront the Soviet Union with claims amount-
ing to an ultimatum.

If, on the other hand, the Soviet Union were compelled
by the actions of the Western Powers to reconsider its
attitude after having once declared its unilateral renun-
ciation of the use of nuclear weapons, it would tend to
undermine the people's faith in our pledged word and
cause confusion among those who are fighting for peace
and whose support we value highly. Such a turn of events
would do a great deal of harm to world peace, a cause
which you and we have in common, and a great deal of
moral harm to the idea of peaceful co-existence. This, in
its turn, would complicate the struggle for universal dis-
armament and for the prohibition of atomic and hydro-
gen weapons; it would increase international mistrust and
lead to an acceleration in the arms race and the stock-
piling of the means of mass extermination.

All this would clearly benefit not those who champion
peace, but those who advocate a policy "from positions
of strength." Needless to say, we do not in the least want
events to take such a turn, and I am sure you do not want
it any more than we do.

As you see, your proposal gives rise to complex and dif-
ficult problems that substantially affect the interests of So-
viet security and world peace. An exchange of views was
held among the leaders of our Party and Government on
the question raised in your letter. Having weighed and
considered your proposal, we concluded that, to our re-
gret, the circumstances do not at the moment allow the So-
viet Government, for the reasons listed above, to commit
itself unilaterally in the manner suggested in your letter.
As long as the Governments of the Western Powers show
no desire to adopt practical disarmament measures and
to renounce atomic and hydrogen weapons, we can appar-
ently do nothing but continue our efforts for peace, reveal-
ing to the peoples the disastrous character of the policy
being pursued by imperialist groups today. We cannot be
reconciled to a situation in which everybody is threatened
with a terrible atomic war and in which an increasing
share of human labour goes to produce weapons of extermi-
nation and destruction instead of to create material val-
ues and raise standards of living. We are confident that
the peoples will bring greater pressure to bear on those
governments whose policies run counter to the interests
of peace, and will in the end make them lend ear to the
voice and demands of millions upon millions of people
and find such a solution as will preclude military catas-
trophe once and for all.

In conclusion allow me, dear Mr. Rajagopalachari, to
wish you good health and success in your activity for the
benefit of peace, friendship and co-operation among peoples.

Sincerely yours,

N. KHRUSHCHOV
December 3, 1957

C. RAJAGOPALACHARIS LETTER TO N. S. KHRUSHCHOV

Dear Mr. Khrushchov,

Mr. Peter Petrov, First Secretary in your Embassy in Delhi,
brought an "unofficial translation" of Your Excellency's letter of De-
cember 3 and gave it to me personally at Madras in my little room.
I am grateful to him for the courtesy shown and trouble taken.

A private person like me has reason to be proud when a letter
from him is given earnest and such full consideration by Your Ex-
cellency and your Government. The subject is of such momentous
importance that I am grateful for the thought I have been able to pro-
voke, whatever may be your reaction to my proposal. I thank you for this.

You said to Mr. Hearst on November 2 last:

"Let us put an end to the cold war." The very pith and substance
of the cold war is suspicion. The very nature of the cold war— this
suspicion— prevents hope for any "agreement" that can end the cold
war. It can be put an end to only by one party or the other begin-
ning with its own unilateral step. There is no way to end the cold
war except by taking a first voluntary unilateral step in the convic-
tion that it must lead to a good reaction en the other side. This nec-
essarily involves risk. But the cold war cannot be ended by any
process that does not involve risk. The cold war is going on de-
veloping a terrible risk by itself. We have to compare one risk with
the other. Ending the cold war means suspending our suspicions.

The argument against any step towards it is suspicion itself. We
are therefore in a terribly vicious circle. The more I think of it, the
clearer it is to me that unless we produce the miracle in the shape
of unilateral action, we cannot hope to end this cold war before it
bursts into a flame, and I fear this is relentlessly approaching. The
strikingly strong position Russia is now in, induced me to appeal to you.

If the step I suggested is unequivocally taken, the U.S.A. will
be drawn as by a steel chain to follow suit. There can be no impu-
tation of breach of faith if by aggression the other party forfeits the
benefit of the pledge and disgraces itself. If we begin this way the
time will arrive when the apprehension will wear away, and, as
you have said, everybody can sink these weapons in the sea. My
appeal differs from your standing offer for an agreement in that no
condition is attached to the declaration. You need not fear reproach
if by aggression, which will be universally condemned, the other par-
ty invites annihilation.

I have written this letter without waiting for Your Excellency's orig-
inal letter to arrive. My highest regards and greetings for the New Year.

Yours sincerely,
Madras C. RAJAGOPALACHARl

December 10, 1957

N. S, KHRUSHCHOV'S REPLY TO C. RAJAGOPALACHARJ'S
LETTER

Madras

Your Excellency,

I have received your letter of December 10, 1957, which
points out the danger of the cold war with a sincere anx-
iety that is only too understandable and calls for its ces-
sation through unilateral action on the part of the Soviet
Government. Trusting in the force of moral influence, you
hold that the Soviet Union's unilateral renunciation of
nuclear weapons would oblige the United States and its
allies to follow suit and would lead to the cessation of the
cold war and the arms race.

I fully agree with you that the continuation of the cold
war in itself increases the danger of a new war that would
wipe out millions of human beings. We must remember
that there is not a single country or people left for whom
the cold war now being waged does not mean a growing
threat of atomic war and a further increase in the burden
of military spending.

By virtue of the socialist nature of its system, the So-
viet Union has not and cannot have any vested interest
in maintaining an atmosphere of cold war and suspicion.
In fact, we have been doing our best to restore trust and
eliminate tension. To those who voiced their suspicions
we held out a friendly hand and repeatedly took specific
unilateral action of the kind you suggest in the sphere of
disarmament, expecting others to follow suit. During the
last two or three years we have reduced our armed forces by
nearly two million. But no one has followed our example.

You know that on December 10 the Soviet Government
answered a message from Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime
Minister of India, who called on the Governments of
the United States and the Soviet Union to cease nuclear
weapons tests. We responded readily to Mr. Nehru's mes-

sage, informing him that the Soviet Government was pre-
pared solemnly to declare that, as from January 1, 1958,
the Soviet Union would not carry out any atomic tests,
provided the United States and Britain declared that they
were ready to do likewise regarding the tests they
were preparing. In signifying our readiness to assume
this serious international obligation, we devoutly hoped
that the United States and its partners would show good
will and follow suit.

Unfortunately, on this occasion too, our hopes were not
realized. In reply to Mr. Nehru's message and to the con-
crete proposal of the Soviet Government, the President of
the United States declared that the U.S.A. deemed it neces-
sary to continue nuclear weapons tests.

You admit in your letter that unilateral renunciation of
nuclear weapons would constitute a great risk for our
country and would not preclude aggression, but you trust
that the United States will not choose war and will follow
our example. You can see, however, that we are again
faced with facts that convince us that the risk would be
much too great and would be highly detrimental not only
to the security of the Soviet Union, but also to universal
peace. Judge for yourself whether we can reasonably ex-
pect the unilateral action by the Soviet Union that you
have in mind to yield the results we desire at a time
when the United States openly confirms that it does not
propose to stop improving these deadly weapons.

You are probably aware that U.S. bombers carrying-
atomic and hydrogen weapons are flying above Britain and
other West European countries day and night. These
flights are intended to demonstrate U.S. preparedness to
begin an atomic war at any moment. The fact that in the
United States preventive war is being more and more in-
sistently advocated and that there are those who recom-
mend the U.S. Government to adopt a military policy
based on the doctrine of preventive war, that is, open ag-
gression against the peace-loving countries, induces us

in the Soviet Union to be particularly vigilant in order to
deal properly with any contingency.

I will not here reiterate the considerations I set out in
my previous letter. You must certainly know of the pro-
posals made by the Soviet Government in its recent mes-
sages to the Governments of the United States, Britain and
other countries, as well as of the session of the Supreme
Soviet of the U.S.S.R., which passed an important for-
eign policy resolution a few days ago. I should merely
like to point out that the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R.
has instructed the Soviet Government to consider the ques-
tion of a further cut in the armed forces of the Soviet
Union. Regarding this resolution as a new and important
step towards promoting peace and creating an atmosphere
of international confidence, we look forward to the Gov-
ernments of the United States, Britain and France like-
wise reducing their armed forces in the interest of genuine
international security.

We are certain that if the unilateral steps taken by us
were supported with similar efforts by the Western Pow-
ers, the international situation would be improved and,
moreover, the road would be laid open to further steps
towards freeing mankind from the arms race and the
threat of an atomic war that would of necessity have dire
consequences for mankind.

We fully appreciate your sincere desire to help in end-
ing the cold war. It fortifies our confidence that those who
have the destinies of the world at heart will become more
and more vocal and that the growing might of the peace-
loving forces will eventually triumph and bring the peo-
ples a durable and lasting peace.

I thank you for your good wishes for the New Year. I
send you New Year's greetings and sincerely wish you hap-
piness and success in your noble work in defence of peace.

Sincerely yours,
December 31, 1957 N. KHRUSHCHOV

International Affairs, No. 2, 1958

REPLIES
TO QUESTIONS PUT BY V. SINNBECK,

EDITOR OF DANSK FOLKESTYRE,

JOURNAL OF YOUTH ORGANIZATION

OF DANISH VENSTRE PARTY

Mr. V. Sinnbeck, editor of Dansk Folkestyre, a journal
published by the youth organization of the Danish
Venstre Party, asked N. S. Khrushchov, the First Secretary
of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union, to reply to some questions.

Below we publish Mr. Sinnbeck's questions and
N. S. Khrushchov's replies.

Question: Do you think that the deployment of atomic
rockets in Denmark and Norway would cause substantial
harm to the relations between Scandinavia and the Soviet
Union?

Answer: I do not doubt that the deployment of atomic
and rocket weapons on Danish and Norwegian territory
would do considerable harm to relations between the So-
viet Union and these countries. After all, the NATO lead-
ers do not in fact conceal that these weapons of mass
annihilation are intended for use against the Soviet Union
and other peace-loving countries.

The deployment of atomic and rocket weapons in Den-
mark and Norway would, of course, lay these countries
open to a retaliatory blow, while the other countries of
Northern Europe might also be confronted by a serious
threat, inasmuch as the danger of an atomic war spread-
ing throughout this traditionally peaceful area would in-

crease. If the North Atlantic Alliance were to establish
atomic and rocket weapons bases in Denmark and Nor-
way, and attempt to use them for launching rockets into
Soviet territory over the territories of Finland and neu-
tral Sweden, it would directly affect the security of Swe-
den and Finland and would infringe their sovereign
rights. It is doubtful that the peoples of Sweden and Fin-
land could be indifferent to this prospect.

Now it is planned to deploy rockets with atomic war-
heads in all the NATO countries. Much anxiety is being
expressed in this connection by the peoples of the coun-
tries on whose territories the war bases are being estab-
lished. They are well aware that the establishment of bases
and rocket launching sites creates a threat to their securi-
ty. Therefore they are protesting against the building of
bases for atomic and rocket weapons. In order to mislead
the peoples, the leaders of the Western Powers manoeu-
vre: they allege that they are deploying rockets without
atomic war-heads, rockets with conventional explosives.
But this subterfuge cannot mislead anyone, because it is
amply clear that a conventional explosive can easily be re-
placed by an atomic war-head. Thus, the situation is not
changed by the fact that the NATO member-countries are
being lavishly supplied with rockets without atomic war-
heads.

We note with satisfaction the statements by the Danish
Prime Minister, Mr. Hansen, and the Norwegian Prime
Minister, Mr. Gerhardsen, who, prompted by the national
interests of their countries, have refused to accept atomic
weapons and the building of rocket launching sites. This
cannot but be welcomed, for this step will not only promote
the improvement of relations between our countries but will
also contribute to the improvement of the whole interna-
tional situation.

Question: Would you like to indicate the measures which
the Soviet Union will take in the event of this deployment
being effected under any circumstances?

Answer: The present attitude of the Governments of
Denmark and Norway gives grounds for hoping that in
the future this question will be a purely academic one. But
if the Governments of Denmark and Norway yield to pres-
sure from outside and agree to the deployment of atomic
and rocket weapons on their territories, the Soviet Union
will, naturally, be compelled to take appropriate measures.

Question: Would you and Chairman of the Council of
Ministers Bulganin accept a possible invitation to pay an
official visit to Denmark as an expression of friendship for
the Scandinavian countries? Should the reply be in the
affirmative, we should like to know when would you be
able to pay this visit?

Answer: We have already expressed our favourable atti-
tude to a visit by Soviet statesmen to Denmark, and also
to Sweden and Norway. The question of the date for such
a visit is a matter for agreement between the parties con-
cerned.

Question: Do you think that the launching of the two
Russian artificial earth satellites has radically altered the
balance of forces between the socialist countries in the
East, on the one hand, and the Western countries, on the
other?

Answer: The launching of the Soviet sputniks above all
demonstrates the outstanding successes achieved by the
Soviet Union in the development of science and technolo-
gy, and also the fact that the U.S.S.R. has outstripped the
leading capitalist country— the United States—in the field
of scientific and technical progress.

The launching of the sputniks undoubtedly also shows
that an important change in favour of the socialist states
has taken place in the balance of forces between the social-
ist and capitalist countries.

Balance of forces is a broad concept which includes po-
litical, economic and military factors. The Soviet Union
and the other socialist states are consistently pursuing a
policy of peace and call for the peaceful co-existence of

states with different social systems, for the ending of the
arms race that is leading to a new war, and the prohibi-
tion of the use, production and testing of atomic and hy-
drogen weapons. The Soviet Union supports the just na-
tional-liberation struggle of the peoples against colonial-
ism. This peace-loving and humane policy is near and dear
to all honest people and can be understood by them. It
cannot fail to win sympathy for the Soviet Union and can-
not but increase its weight and influence in international
affairs, as the facts daily demonstrate.

As for the economic factor, the Soviet Union and other
socialist countries have achieved — and this is no longer
denied by anyone — great successes in economic develop-
ment and are rapidly altering the balance of forces in their
own favour. In peaceful economic competition we do not
doubt in the least that the task set by V. I. Lenin of eco-
nomically overtaking and surpassing the most advanced
capitalist countries — that is to say, in per capita produc-
tion— will be successfully carried out by the Soviet peo-
ple. It can be said that our plans already outline measures
for the practical solution of this task. As for the military
side of the problem, the successful launching of the Soviet
sputniks with the help of the intercontinental ballistic
rocket speaks for itself and scarcely needs any extensive
comments.

However, I want to emphasize that the change in the
balance of forces in favour of the socialist states is an im-
portant factor strengthening peace. Owing to their very
nature, the socialist states do not pursue, and cannot pur-
sue, any aggressive aims. The Soviet Union is directing all
its efforts towards the relaxation of international tension,
towards the development of friendly relations with all
states on the basis of peaceful co-existence and strengthen-
ing confidence between all countries, and it will continue
to do so.

Question: How long do you think it will take the Soviet
Union to reach the living standard of the United States?

Answer: The living standard means the degree to which
man's material and spiritual requirements are satisfied.
It includes food, footwear, clothing and other consumer
goods, housing, education, medical services, sports facili-
ties, guaranteed work, rest and leisure, conditions for the
development of man's finest gifts and the like.

The living standards of the Soviet people have recently
increased considerably. In all important spheres such as
education, medical services, facilities for sport, the organ-
ization of rest and leisure, etc., we are already second to
no capitalist country, including the United States. The
Americans themselves, for instance, recognize our suc-
cesses in education.

As for food and consumer goods, the Soviet people have
set themselves the task of overtaking the United States in
the per capita production of these commodities within the
next few years. We have already made definite progress in
housing, and are confident that within the next ten or
twelve years, or perhaps sooner, the housing problem will
be completely solved in our country.

In comparing the situation in the Soviet Union and the
United States, it must not be forgotten that the living
standard is determined, not so much by the quantitv of
goods produced for the population, as by the level of their
consumption, which depends on effective demand. In the
conditions of capitalism there is an extremely big gap
between the level of consumption by people with high and
low incomes. The Soviet Union provides much greater
equality in living standards, since it has no exploiting
classes, socialism is already built and the Soviet people
are now engaged in building a communist society. I shall
not touch in detail on such a^question as the existence of
a large standing army of unemployed in the United
States and other capitalist countries.^ The Soviet
Union has known no unemployment for a long time now,
because unemployment has been done away with for
good.

—

Question: Do you think that the so-called youth festi-
vals are an ideal form of East-West youth meetings? Have
you in mind any other forms of meetings which could
strengthen peaceful co-existence between states?

Answer: The World Festivals of Youth and Students are,
of course, not the only form of meetings between the
young people of the East and the West. Other useful forms
of contacts are also possible.

It is said, for instance, that Scandinavia has a rather
widespread network of international work and tourist
camps and youth hostels, that forms of international sem-
inars are often used there, etc. These forms of meetings
between young people of different countries are very use-
ful. I have been informed that our youth organization also
intends to organize an international work camp in the So-
viet Union this year and to arrange an international
"atoms for peace" seminar and other international events.

At the same time, I cannot but note that World Youth
Festivals have rather important merits too. They have be-
come a good tradition and have won wide recognition and
approval among the young people. You probably know
that six of these festivals have been held in the past ten
years. The last— the Sixth World Festival— held in Mos-
cow, was attended by 34,000 people from 130 countries in
all continents. There were many more who wanted to
come, but were unable to do so.

We still hear assertions that World Youth Festivals are
a "communist idea." It is said that many of those who
took part in the Moscow Festival were suspicious at the
beginning and harboured a certain mistrust, but having
got to know one another better, they understood that there
was nothing to fear: No one wished to foist his way of
thinking or his way of living on others, but everyone
wanted the same thing — to live in peace and friendship,
to enjoy the blessings of science and culture, to help the
peoples to advance along the road of progress and pros-
perity. People of various countries differ in their way of

life and thinking. Now there are two different systems;
there are socialist and capitalist countries. The peoples
living in these states have no other alternative but to live
peacefully side by side, not to interfere in one another's
internal affairs, and respect the opinions of others. I think
the World Youth Festivals help people to understand this
by bringing the representatives of the young people of
different nations closer together.

In any case, all forms of meetings are good if they lead
to the desired end — to the establishment of mutual under-
standing, confidence and friendship, to the strengthening
of peace.

Question: Do you have any proposals to make regard-
ing ties between the young people of the Soviet Union and
Scandinavia?

Answer: During the stay of the Danish Prime Minister,
Mr. Hansen, in Moscow in March 1956, a satisfactory so-
lution was found to several practical questions concern-
ing cultural and scientific contacts between our two coun-
tries. The question of exchanging students and of recip-
rocal invitations to professors and instructors for scien-
tific work and lecturing was also settled.

At the present time there are favourable conditions for
extending and consolidating friendly ties between the
young people of the Soviet Union and Denmark. Regional
meetings of the young people of Baltic states, exchanges
of delegations of the leaders of youth organizations, re-
ciprocal visits by groups of children for holidays during
school vacations, tourist travel, etc., could be very use-
ful in strengthening friendship between our countries.
Everything depends on enterprise and sincere desire. The
young people must themselves put forward concrete pro-
posals regarding the best ways of strengthening friend-
ship between the youth of the U.S.S.R. and the Scandina-
vian countries. The Soviet young people will undoubtedly
respond with cordiality and sincerity to any good initia-
tive coming from the young people of Scandinavia.

Question: How do you assess relations between Scandi-
navia and the Soviet Union today?

Answer: The existing possibilities in relations between
the Soviet Union and the Scandinavian countries are far
from being fully utilized.

The development of friendly relations between the
U.S.S.R. and the Scandinavian countries can undoubtedly
be furthered by our common interest in strengthening peace
in the Baltic area. This community of interests assumes
particularly great significance if we take into considera-
tion the fact that the ruling circles of the leading NATO
countries, disregarding the peaceful traditions and na-
tional interests of the Scandinavian countries, are persis-
tently striving to carry out their plans for militarizing
Scandinavia and the Baltic area, thereby aggravating the
situation in the region.

These actions by the ruling circles of the leading coun-
tries of the North Atlantic bloc and — let us not hide the fact
— some Scandinavian statesmen too, run counter to the
task of strengthening peace in the Scandinavian and Bal-
tic Sea area. It is our belief that such actions as Den-
mark's participation in the plans for establishing a joint
Baltic naval command with West Germany and Britain
are scarcely compatible with this aim.

Correctly understood, the national interests of the Scan-
dinavian countries in our view demand that no artificial
barriers be placed in the way of improving mutual un-
derstanding between the Baltic countries. It is necessary
to encourage the consolidation of friendly ties between
them in every way.

For its part, the Soviet Union is ready to develop all-
round friendly ties with the Scandinavian countries on the
basis of mutual respect for national sovereignty, non-in-
terference in one another's internal affairs, and equality.
We stand for the extensive development of mutually bene-
ficial trade with Scandinavia, without any discrimination,
and for the establishment of the closest scientific, techni-

cal and cultural ties. We believe that the strengthening of
contacts between the U.S.S.R. and Scandinavia would
greatly benefit the peoples of our countries, and in the final
analysis help to turn Northern Europe into a zone of genu-
inely lasting peace.

Replies sent on January 4, 1958.
Pravda, January 15, 1958

SOME ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL SITUATION

Speech at Conference

of Front-Rank Agricultural Workers

of Byelorussian Republic

January 22, 1958

Comrades, you all know how the international situa-
tion has changed, how it has improved compared with
what it was a year ago. At the end of 1956, as a result of
mistakes made by the former Hungarian leadership the
events took place in Hungary which you all know about.
Counter-revolutionary elements, supported by internation-
al reaction, made an attempt to overthrow the people's
power in Hungary and to restore the capitalist, fascist
system. There were certain difficulties in some other Peo-
ple's Democracies as well, primarily in Poland.

The imperialist Powers were doing everything possible
to make use of this for their own ends against the social-
ist countries. The reactionary vultures, in transports of
joy, were croaking for all the world to hear that the disin-
tegration, the crisis of communism had begun, that the
Soviet Union and the People's Democracies had come up
against difficulties which they would not be able to cope
with.

The aggressive forces of the Western Powers decided
that the moment was propitious for them to change the
situation in the Middle East, to strengthen their colonial
positions there, which were shaken by the growth of the
national-liberation movement, by the growth of the forces
of the world socialist system. The then Governments of
Britain, France and Israel started a military gamble

against Egypt. You all know how that imperialist adven-
ture ended.

The plans of the imperialists, who staked on the forces
of counter-revolution in Hungary, failed. The Revolution-
ary Workers' and Peasants' Government of the Hungarian
People's Republic, led by Comrade Janos Kadar, mobilized
the working class, the working peasantry and the progres-
sive intellectuals of Hungary against the counter-revo-
lutionary forces. It requested the Soviet Union for assist-
ance, and we gave this fraternal assistance. Literally
within three days the counter-revolutionary bands were
smashed and revolutionary order restored. The Soviet
Union and all the other socialist countries helped the
Hungarian people, as friends, to restore and further devel-
op the country's economy. Naturally, Hungary still has
some serious economic difficulties caused by counter-revo-
lutionary activities and the people feel them and have to
pay for the harm done to the country's economy by the
fascist rebels.

In the Polish People's Republic, where not a few diffi-
culties still exist, measures are being taken to strengthen
the people's democratic system. As you may have seen in
the press, I spent three days in the Polish People's Repub-
lic recently at the invitation of the First Secretary of the
Central Committee of the Polish United Workers' Party,
Wladyslaw Gomulka, and Chairman of the Council of Min-
isters Jozeph Cyrankiewicz and had cordial talks with the
Polish leaders. In these talks I derived the impression that
by making a correct use of its strength and potentialities,
the Polish United Workers' Party, led by Comrade Gomul-
ka, will succeed in overcoming the existing difficulties and
will achieve new successes in developing the country's so-
cialist economy and raising the living standards of the
people.

The imperialist "prophecies" concerning the Soviet
Union and the strength and stability of our socialist sys-
tem have misfired miserably. Our enemies claimed that

we would come up against new domestic difficulties be-
cause in the Soviet Union the number of people with a
secondary and higher education was increasing every year
and therefore they would undoubtedly turn against the
communist system and strive for a "free" system, as our
enemies understand it, that is to say, the capitalist sys-
tem.

As the saying goes: "A hungry man dreams of buns."
The capitalists in the same way dream of the collapse of
the socialist system, the collapse of communism. But nei-
ther they, nor their grandchildren or great grandchildren
will live to see it. (Applause-)

When we criticized the shortcomings in our agriculture,
the imperialists started clamouring about a "crisis" of
Soviet agriculture, saying that this time the Bolsheviks
would not be able to get away with it. Today anyone can
see how we have got out of that "crisis." Our Party not
only boldly criticized the shortcomings we had, but worked
out specific measures for the rapid expansion of socialist
agriculture. It organized the work in such a way that a
six-year programme for increasing the output of a number
of the most important livestock products has been success-
fully fulfilled in three years. Today, even representatives
of capitalism who come to our country no longer speak
of a "crisis" in our agriculture, but draw attention instead
to its great achievements.

Later, when we raised the question of reorganizing the
system of management in industry and construction, the
capitalists again began to declare that industry in the So-
viet Union was in a bad way and that the Bolsheviks
would not cope with the difficulties of industrial devel-
opment. But only six months have gone by and these fore-
casts of our opponents have also come to nothing.

The favourite idea of the imperialists, of which they
tried to convince themselves and others, was that the so-
cialist system was not conducive to the development of
science and culture, that it stifled man's efforts. They

spread other fantastic fabrications as well and became so
proficient in this that they came to believe those fabrica-
tions themselves. It does happen that a man tells a lie
once, twice, thrice, and then comes to believe that he is
telling the truth, so accustomed has he become to his own
story.

But this bourgeois fabrication, too, came to a sorry end.
The Soviet Union launched an intercontinental ballistic
missile, the testing of which yielded positive results. We
can now send a missile to any point on the globe, carry-
ing, if necessary, a hydrogen war-head. Our announce-
ment to this effect was greeted with disbelief and regard-
ed as an attempt by the Soviet leaders to instil confidence
in their own people and intimidate the Western govern-
ments. But then the Soviet Union, using the interconti-
nental ballistic missile, launched an artificial earth satel-
lite, and when it started circling the globe and when every-
one—unless he was blind— could see it by looking up
into the sky, our opponents became silent. They thought
at first they would get off with a slight shock. One Amer-
ican general even said that the launching of a satellite
did not require much brain and that anyone could take a
piece of metal and throw it into the sky. Well, why don't
you do it if you are so clever and so strong? (Animation in
the hall. Applause.) This silly statement by an American
general was ridiculed by the Americans themselves, not to
mention others.

A month after the launching of the first satellite, a sec-
ond Soviet sputnik, weighing more than 508 kilograms,
was sent up. After this, even the most hidebound sceptics
were left without a basis for spreading fabrications about
the development of Soviet science, culture and techno-
logy.

What was there left for the Americans to do? They said:
"We too shall send up a satellite." And they announced
the date on which they intended "to launch an earth satel-
lite the size of an orange and weighing about one and a

half kilograms. They also said that their satellite would be
so small that it would not be visible. And they did indeed
try to launch an earth satellite, but nothing came of it. A
film is now being shown of how their sputnik exploded
without leaving the ground and burned up with the rocket.
Then there was nothing left for them to do but admit
that the Soviet Union had indeed surpassed the U.S.A. in
science and engineering, that the Soviet Union was ev-
ery year training three times as many engineers as the
United States. But this time too some wiseacres, started a
hue and cry, alleging that the Russians had stolen the
plans for the satellite from the Americans. But the Ameri-
cans themselves asked them: If the Russians did steal our
plans and, with their help, built a rocket and launched
earth satellites, why cannot we ourselves, using our own
designs, build such a rocket and launch such satellites?
Thus, the Americans themselves are ridiculing this stupid-
ity too.

A new story then appeared. Some people began to claim
that Germans had helped the Russians to build a ballistic
rocket. The Russians, it was alleged, had captured Ger-
man scientists and engineers and made use of their knowl-
edge and experience. But reasonable people again asked:
If Germans helped the Russians, why don't they help the
U.S.A.? After all, American troops captured the laborato-
ry of the German research institute and the chief designer
of the iV-2 rocket and took him to America, where he is
now working on rockets.

It is no secret that a small group of Germans did work
in our country for a time and, on the expiry of their con-
tracts, have either returned, or are returning to Germa-
ny. When they returned and told what they knew, the
Americans believed that they had reliable information
about the stage reached by the Soviet Union in rocket
building. When we launched an artificial earth satellite,
the Americans complained afresh:

"We have been fooled again. The Germans who came

to us know nothing about what the Russians are doing.
It turns out that the Germans did not take part in develop-
ing the rocket."

The Soviet Union has demonstrated by deeds that the
Soviet system,, the socialist system, is the most progres-
sive system, giving great scope to the development of all
branches of the national economy and creating the most
favourable conditions for the development of science, cul-
ture and the arts. Our country has made great headway
in the 40 years of Soviet power. In a number of key
branches of science our country has outstripped the most
highly developed capitalist country— the United States of
America. The world's first artificial earth satellites were
developed and successfully launched in the Soviet Union.
And this, of course, is by no means the last word of Soviet
science and technology, of oar socialist industry. All the
world was amazed by the fact that Sputnik II "was over
six times heavier than Sputnik I and weighed more than
half a ton. But even this is not the limit. We can double
and more than double the sputnik's weight, because the
Soviet intercontinental rocket is immensely powerful,
making it possible for us to launch a still heavier sputnik
to a still greater height. And that is what we shall do
perhaps. (Stormy applause.)

The imperialists are seriously worried by our achieve-
ments in rocketry, in the use of atomic energy for peace-
ful purposes and in the development of jet aircraft For
more than two years the TU-104 jet plane developed bv
the outstanding Soviet designer Academician Tupolev has
been flying on passenger routes in the Soviet Union The
Americans plan to produce such a plane only in 1959
Other capitalist countries have no such planes either But
we have produced an even more powerful aircraft-the
1U-114, as well as new and powerful aircraft bv other
eminent Soviet designers.

In the spring of 1956, when we were in London and
had talks with Messrs. Eden, Lloyd, Macmillan, But-

ler and other British statesmen, we told them frankly
that we had rockets of various ranges. Later, when Is-
rael, Britain and France attacked Egypt, the Soviet Gov-
ernment stated in a message to the British Prime Minis-
ter: What would be the position of Britain herself if she
were attacked by stronger states possessing modern de-
structive weapons of all kinds? And such countries, the
message said, could even do without sending a navy or
an air fleet to British shores, but could use other means,
for instance rocketry.

This statement by the Soviet Government evidently in-
fluenced them. Previously they had apparently thought that
we were simply bluffing when we openly said that the So-
viet Union possessed powerful rockets. But then they saw
that we really had such rockets. And this had its effect.
(Applause.)

Now the imperialists are trying to intimidate the So-
viet Union and other peace-loving countries by building
atomic bases and rocket launching sites on the territo-
ries of countries which belong to NATO and other ag-
gressive blocs. But as yet they have no rockets for those
bases and only intend to develop them in the future. This
means that it will take them two or three years before
they will be able to supply these sites with the nec-
essary rockets. But we already today have rockets
which could be delivered to any part of the globe
to administer a crushing blow to the aggressors if
they attempt to unleash a new war. So the imperialists
will not succeed in intimidating us. Soviet people are
not of the timid kind and those who love military adven-
tures would do better to think about themselves. We have
whatever is needed to defend the honour, freedom, inde-
pendence and great achievements of the Soviet people.
(Stormy applause.)

Comrades, the U.S. Secretary of State, Mr. Dulles, is
especially active in extolling the "policy of strength." He
keeps repeating that the United States can talk with the

i^^BV

Soviet Union only when it considers that it has absolute
superiority in strength over the Soviet Union— that is,
talk in the language of ultimatums and the diktat. But
we have always contended that this is a stupid policy.
The U.S. ruling circles have always thought they are
stronger than we are. Our opinion on this subject is dif-
ferent. After the launching of the Soviet sputniks all the
world said that the Soviet Union had forged ahead of the
United States in many fields of science and technology.
The Americans themselves were also compelled to admit:
Yes, we have been outstripped.

We have always said and continue to say now. Let us
improve our relations, let us trade, let us develop scien-
tific, cultural and sports contacts. Let us meet and dis-
cuss pressing international problems in a business-like
manner. We have proposed and we propose now that an
end be put to the cold war and the arms race, that the
"policy of strength" be renounced, that the policy of in-
timidation by war be abandoned, and that our relations
be built on the basis of peaceful co-existence. Now the
U.S. rulers declare: First we must catch up with the So-
viet Union, and when we match its scientific achievements
we shall be able to talk.

The untenability of such a policy is obvious. It is a fore-
gone conclusion that the Soviet Union will not mark
time while they are catching up with us. We shall not sit
around drinking tea. It is a foregone conclusion that we
shall also be doing something to prevent them from catch-
ing up with us. And so this senseless policy of the impe-

™!m! nT haVe °nly °ne result~an endless arms race
with all the consequences that it would entail

the monopolies do not want any reduction of internation-
al tension; they refuse to discard the policy of cold war
and in every possible way hinder the settlement of urgent
international problems by negotiations. They wax fat in an
atmosphere of war hysteria, squeeze huge taxes out of the
population, and make fabulous profits out of the manu-

facture of aircraft, guns, rockets, warships and atomic
weapons.

Such, in general outline, is the international situation.
On the one hand, there is a universal growing desire on
the part of the peoples for the consolidation of peace and
international security. There is a further growth of the na-
tional-liberation movement and a strengthening of the sol-
idarity of the peoples of Asia and Africa in their strug-
gle against the colonialists. The Cairo Solidarity Confer-
ence of Asian and African Countries clearly demonstrated
that the peoples are now full of strength and the desire
to struggle against colonialism and imperialist reaction.
The peoples want to put an end to the cold war, to halt
the arms race, ban atomic and hydrogen weapons, and
free mankind from the threat of a new world war.

On the other hand, we see the obvious intention of the
aggressive circles of the imperialist Powers to aggravate
international tension, to continue the arms race for the
enrichment of a handful of monopolists at the expense of
millions of taxpayers, to intensify the cold war on the ba-
sis of the "policy of strength," to halt the disintegration
of the colonial system of imperialism and strangle the
national-liberation movement of the peoples for freedom
and independence. The ruling circles of the imperialist
countries are pursuing a policy of further strengthening
military blocs, and trying to unite all the aggressive blocs
such as NATO, the Baghdad Pact and SEATO, into a sin-
gle aggressive military bloc led by the United States of
America. Is not this policy of the present-day claimants to
world domination reminiscent of that pursued by Hitler
and Mussolini when they based their policy on strength
and built the notorious Anti-Comintern Pact, the Berlin-
Rome-Tokyo Axis?

But everyone knows how this fascist scheme ended.
Hitler, Mussolini and other fascist bosses have long
ceased to keep the world at fever pitch by their criminal
adventures, while the Soviet Union is developing and be-

coming stronger. Today the Soviet Union is not alone in its
advance toward communism. This road has been firmly
and irrevocably taken by the peoples of many countries
in Europe and Asia. Today the world socialist system
exists as a powerful factor for peace.

The Soviet Union has been consistently pursuing a peace
policy. The Soviet Government, desirous of ensuring
world peace, has put forward new concrete proposals to
ease international tension. The Soviet Government has
sent messages to the President of the United States of
America, Mr. Eisenhower, the Prime Minister of Britain,
Mr. Macmillan, the Prime Minister of France, M. Gaillard|
the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, Hen-
Adenauer, to all the Heads of Government of the NATO
member-states, and also to the governments of all countries
which are members of the United Nations.

As you are well aware, the Soviet Union has proposed
that within the next two or three months a conference of
representatives of a number of socialist and capitalist
states be called on the highest level, that is, a conference
of responsible statesmen of these countries to discuss the
most important and urgent international problems. Why
are we proposing such a conference? We have done this
primarily because talks, a calm and reasonable settlement
of the present differences between the Great Powers or
at least some of these differences, are the only way which
we can all take if we want peace and if we do not want
the alternative — war.

We consider it necessary to focus the attention of a con-
ference of leading statesmen above all on the most urgent
problems, in order to lay the foundations for an improve-
ment in the entire international climate. This is our po-
sition: A meeting must be organized to discuss issues that
can be settled today, for there are such issues, some of
them very important ones. We propose the convening of
such a conference, prompted by the desire to achieve pos-
itive results. This should lead to a relaxation of tension

and create conditions for the complete elimination of the
cold war. The examination of other problems could be
postponed to a later stage in the talks. Such a gradual,
stage-by-stage examination of pressing international issues
is most realistic and reasonable.

But, unfortunately, the ruling circles of the Western
countries, which do not want a relaxation of tension, the
elimination of the cold war and the ending of the arms
race, put forward for discussion above all issues on which
it is more difficult or even impossible to reach agreement
and, moreover, do it virtually in a form of an ultimatum.
They declare that if the questions they put forward are not
settled, it is useless to hold a meeting, since, they allege,
it is impossible to reach agreement with the Soviet
Union.

Why is this being done? People who approach the con-
vening of a conference in this way not only do not want
to ease international tension, but are doing everything to
intensify that tension and to foment war hysteria in order
to make it easier for themselves to use that tension and
the peoples' fear of war for their own ends, -for the pur-
pose of making profits. We, who are champions of peace,
want to hold a meeting on the highest level without de-
lay, to solve all urgent problems — provided, of course,
there is willingness on both sides — and thereby to create
a certain atmosphere of warmth in relations between
states. Such an atmosphere of warmth would help the light
spring breezes grow stronger and melt the ice, creating
the conditions in which new shoots would spring up on
the warmed soil with greater speed, so that there would
be greater confidence among states and the cause of peace
would develop and grow stronger.

It can scarcely be doubted that it is not only the peo-
ples of the Soviet Union, but also the peoples of the Unit-
ed States of America, Britain, France, Germany and all
the other countries as well who are concerned to ease in-
ternational tension. That is why world public opinion and

M^HHMi^^BH

the governments of a number of countries have received
with approval the new peace proposals of the Soviet Gov-
ernment.

In his reply to the message of the Soviet Government,
the Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru, de-
clared that they agree with us that a summit meeting is
both desirable and necessary, that they would welcome
such a conference regardless of whether" it will be attend-
ed by a small or a large number of participants.

In his speech in the Danish Parliament the Danish
Prime Minister, Mr. Hansen, said:

"We, on the Danish side, favour the holding of a sum-
mit conference between East and West and I think every-
one will agree with me on this. Of course, no one at the
moment can have any idea about which countries will par-
ticipate in such talks. But if the problem becomes of im-
mediate concern to us, I believe there will be no objec-
tions to our positive answer to a possible invitation to
take part in such a conference."

The Prime Minister of Afghanistan, Mr. Daoud says-

"The Government of Afghanistan, supporting the pro-
posal of the Soviet Government for personal contacts be-
tween the Heads of the Great Powers, considers them to be
a useful and wise step designed to eliminate international
tension and settle most of the existing difficulties."

The replies of the governments of a number of other
states express a similar positive attitude towards the idea
of convening a conference at a high level, although the
replies contain various shades of opinion.

How did the leaders of the Western Powers react to the
proposals of the Soviet Union? The U.S. President's Mes-
sage to Congress on the State of the Union says-

"This is the spirit of what we Americans would like to
say:

;'In the last analysis, there is only one solution to the
grim problems that lie ahead. The world must stop the
present plunge toward more and more destructive weap-

ons of war, and turn the corner that will start our steps
firmly on the path toward lasting peace.

"Our greatest hope for success lies in a universal fact:
the people of the world, as people, have always wanted
peace and want peace now.

'The problem, then, is to find a way of translating this
universal desire into action.

"This will require more than words of peace. It requires
works of peace."

And there lies the crux of the problem. Mr. Eisenhower
has hinted at something with which I shall deal presently.

One can agree with Mr. Eisenhower's words when he
says that what is needed are not only words of peace
but works of peace as well. But this should be done by
both sides and not only by the Soviet side. The Soviet
Union is demonstrating its desire for peace by its deeds.
Our Government has unilaterally reduced its armed forces
by 1,800,000 men. We have carried out a number of
actions in the field of foreign policy in order to ease inter-
national tension and put an end to the cold war, we have
abolished our military bases in Porkkala-Udd and in
Port Arthur, reduced our armed forces in the German Dem-
ocratic Republic by more than 30,000 men, settled peace-
ful relations with Austria, put an end to the state of
war with Japan, and done much to strengthen peace. Mean-
while, the Governments of the United States, Britain
and France have thus far done practically nothing in re-
sponse to these concrete peace moves of the Soviet Union.

What then are the works of peace that the President has
in mind? It is true that the world is awaiting the mo-
ment when the Governments of the United States, Britain,
France and West Germany will at last make their contri-
bution and begin their works of peace which will facilitate
the ending of the cold war and the establishment of last-
ing world peace. That is paramount. (Applause.)

The Soviet Union continues to prove by its works its
sincere desire to strengthen peace and international secu-

rity. In accordance with a decree of the Supreme Soviet of
the U.S.S.R., the Soviet Government has resolved further
to reduce its armed forces by 300,000 men, including the
withdrawal of more than 41,000 troops from the German
Democratic Republic and more than 17,000 from Hungary.

Are not these works of peace, Mr. Eisenhower, Mr. Dul-
les and the other gentlemen on whom depends the ending
of the cold war and the easing of international tension?

But I want to stress once again that such works of peace
must be performed not only by the Soviet Union and
other peace-loving countries, but by all the Western coun-
tries as well. It will then be possible to say with certainty
that the problems disturbing the minds of people through-
out the world will really be solved successfully.

In his reply to the message of the Soviet Government
dated December 10, 1957, the President of the United
States expressed agreement with the Soviet Government's
proposal that a conference of statesmen of the West and
East be convened.

His message says:

"I am ready to meet with the Soviet leaders to discuss
the proposals mentioned in your letter and the proposals
which I make, with the attendance as appropriate of lead-
ers of other states which have recognized responsibilities in
relation to one or another of the subjects we are to dis-
cuss."

But Mr. Eisenhower proposes that a Foreign Ministers'
conference be convened to discuss the substance of inter-
national problems before a summit conference is held His
message puts forward the proposal that before a summit
conference is called "these complex matters should be
worked on in advance through diplomatic channels and by
our Foreign Ministers, so that the issues can be presented
in a orm suitable for our decisions and so that it can be
ascertained that such a top-level meeting would, in fact
hold good hope of advancing the cause of peace and jus-
tice in the world.

It would appear that everything was going well. In his
message Mr. Eisenhower gives the following "solemn and
categorical assurances":

"1. Never will the United States lend its support to any
aggressive action by any collective defence organization or
any member thereof;

"2. Always will the United States be ready to move
toward the development of effective United Nations collec-
tive security measures in replacement of regional collec-
tive defence measures."

These pronouncements by Mr. Eisenhower cannot but
be welcomed, but how are they to be equated with the
President's demands that such a conference discuss the.
question of the countries of Eastern Europe — that is to
say, the People's Democracies— and also that the problem
of reunifying Germany be discussed in order to do away
with the German Democratic Republic?

The Soviet Union has repeatedly made clear its attitude
both on the question of the European People's Democra-
cies, whose peoples have freely chosen their path of devel-
opment, and also on the German problem.

The President of the United States is aware of the So-
viet Government's attitude on these issues. Nevertheless,
in his message in reply, Mr. Eisenhower writes:

"■I know that your Government is reluctant to discuss
these matters or to treat them as a matter of international
concern. . . . This was another matter taken up at our meet-
ing in Geneva in 1955. You then took the position that
there were no grounds for discussing this question at our
conference and that it would involve interference in the
internal affairs of the Eastern European states.

"But have not subsequent developments shown that I
was justified in my appeal to you for consideration of these
matters? Surely, the Hungarian developments and the
virtually unanimous action of the United Nations General
Assembly in relation thereto show that conditions in East-
ern Europe are regarded throughout the world as much

more than a matter of purely domestic scope. I propose
that we should now discuss this matter. There is an in-
trinsic need of this in the interests of peace and justice,
which seems to me compelling."

What is it, then, that Messrs. Eisenhower and Dulles
want? Apparently they want to meet us and talk about
abolishing the socialist system in the Soviet Union and
the people's democratic system in the People's Democra-
cies. They apparently want us to abandon the building of
socialism and restore the capitalist system. Some go so
far as to demand a popular referendum in the socialist
countries on whether they are for socialism or for capi-
talism.

I must tell these gentlemen that they must have for-
gotten their history. The peoples of the Soviet Union
have already had occasion to confront the United States
of America, Germany, France, Britain, Japan and other
countries on these issues. What did the governments of
these countries do when Soviet government was estab-
lished in our country and when the peoples of the Soviet
Republic renounced war and, under the guidance of the
Communist Party and its great leader, V. I. Lenin,
embarked upon the peaceful building of socialism? They
sent their troops to our country to throttle the newly born
Soviet state in its cradle. Britain landed troops in Arkhan-
gelsk, Murmansk and in the South of our country. The
United States did the same in Arkhangelsk, Murmansk and
in the Far East; Japan in Vladivostok; France in Odessa
and in the North; Germany occupied vital areas of the
Ukraine; the Poland of Pilsudski sent her troops against
Kiev. The troops of 14 capitalist states attacked the young
and weak Soviet state. That is when the popular referen-
dum on who supported the restoration of capitalism and
who supported the gains of the working class and the
working peasantry began. (Stormy applause.)

That popular referendum lasted three years. And what
was the result? The Soviet people, shedding their blood

and suffering untold hardships — famine, cold, privations —
arms in hand voted unanimously for their own Soviet gov-
ernment. They crushed the internal Russian counter-rev-
olution and drove the foreign invaders who had assailed
the freedom and independence of our country from their
sacred soil. (Stormy, prolonged applause.)

Is not that sufficient for the imperialists, the supporters
and followers of that policy? Have our people not clearly
demonstrated whether they are for socialism or for ca-
pitalism? Who was it who then sent those troops to our
country? The British Government was then headed by
Lloyd George, and Winston Churchill was Secretary for
War; Poincare was President of France and Clemenceau
was Prime Minister and War Minister; Woodrow Wilson
was President of the United States (I have forgotten who
succeeded him and who it was with whom the Soviet peo-
ple brought to an end the "talks" he started); Pan Pil-
sudski was in power in Poland. Many of the gentlemen
who attempted to hold such "talks" with the Soviet peo-
ple are no longer alive, but some still are. Let the present
advocates of "referendums" consult those who organized
the intervention against the Republic of the Soviets, and
ask them how such "talks" and "referendums" end.
(Stormy applause.)

Later, when the fascists came to power in some coun-
tries, they also attempted to organize a similar "referen-
dum." Hitler declared war on communism, announcing
that he would destroy it. He began to prepare for war as
soon as he had seized power in Germany. He was helped
by monopoly groups in the United States and some other
countries. They tried hard to incite Hitler Germany against
the Soviet Union. The fascists made a vile and perfid-
ious attack on our country. We must remind Herr Ade-
nauer of this, since he may have forgotten that it was fas-
cist Germany that made a gangster-like attack on the So-
viet Union. Hitler, Gobbels and others proclaimed that the
Soviet Union was a colossus with feet of clay. Some West-

em politicians hinted to the fascist ringleaders that the
German tanks would cut through the Soviet state like
a knife through butter. Such a policy encouraged and in-
cited Hitler's predatory acts. And the German fascists
when they attacked the Soviet Union thought that their
armies would have something in the nature of a pleasant
stroll.

Taking advantage of surprise and other factors which
were then not in our favour, the German troops reached
the approaches to Moscow and Leningrad and got to Sta-
lingrad. But how did it all end? With the complete defeat of
the German fascist state. The Soviet Armed Forces and
the entire Soviet people, who rose up in the sacred Pa-
triotic War, broke the backbone of the fascist beast, defeat-
ed the Hitler armies and thus once again demonstrated
the fate in store for those who base their adventurist hopes
on the "instability" of the socialist system.

When the Soviet army was waging bitter battles against
Hitler's armies, the peoples of the countries occupied by
the German invaders began guerilla warfare against fas-
cism. At a certain stage in the struggle against fascism the
Soviet Armed Forces were joined by the working class and
working peasantry of Poland, Albania, Yugoslavia, Czech-
oslovakia, Bulgaria, Rumania and Hungary who, under
the guidance of their Communist parties, made a great
contribution to the rout of the Hitler hordes. As a result
of the defeat of fascism, as a result of the people's demo-
cratic revolutions in a number of European states the
peoples established the system of people's democracy in
their countries. Was not that a vote, comrades? Was not
that a popular referendum in the European countries
whoSe peoples have firmly rallied under the banner of
Marxism-Leninism and are successfully developing their
economy, their people's states and their society on social-
ist principles? {Prolonged applause.)

What kind of "referendum" do the imperialist gentlemen
now want? Was not this a convincing expression of the

peoples' will? Apparently, they want to impose the capi-
talist system on the peoples of the socialist countries by
force.

But they tried this kind of "referendum" in our country.
Remember 1919, when Kolchak, after having seized al-
most all of Siberia, started moving towards Moscow,
when Yudenich threatened revolutionary Petrograd, and
when the White armies of Denikin, after having seized
Orel, were approaching Tula and thrusting towards
Moscow. Then only a small part of the Soviet land was
free. But as a result of the efforts of our Party, which
headed the struggle of the working class and the working
peasantry, the Republic of Soviets beat back the onslaught
of the interventionists and the internal counter-revolu-
tion. The Soviet people, like the warrior of ancient legend,
squared their mighty shoulders, routed the counter-revo-
lutionary forces and expelled the armies of the interven-
tionists from their native soil.

The entire people took part in the struggle against the
enemy. The great leader of our Party and of our people,
V. I. Lenin, armed the Party and the people with a clear
idea, and showed the working class and all the working
people how to struggle for their freedom, for the building
of a new life without capitalists and landlords. The working
class and all the people supported Lenin's idea, support-
ed Lenin's aspirations and followed our Communist Party
along the road of Marxism-Leninism. That is how our
people in the struggle for their freedom settled the ques-
tion of choosing their way forward and their state system.

In the conditions of peaceful development the working
people of the Soviet Union and the People's Democracies,
being as they are the exclusive masters of their destinies,
the builders of a new life, the creators of the most demo-
cratic society, elect the organs of power in conformity
with their constitutions by a free expression of their will.
Voting in the elections to the organs of state power,
for the finest sons and daughters of their peoples, the

working people place great trust in them and instruc
them to serve the cause of the building of communism
with loyalty and devotion.

And now, when our people are enjoying the fruits of
their victories gained in the 40 years of Soviet power,
the imperialist gentlemen want to divert them from this'
the only correct, tried and tested road. But, gentlemen'
times have changed and events have taken a different
course. (Stormy applause.)

The question of a political system in any country is
the domestic concern of the people of that country Ob-
viously, this tea question which is quite different from, say
that of abolishing the cold war or ending the arms race If
some statesmen of the Western Powers want to raise th«
question of the socialist system in the People's Democra-
cies the representatives of the socialist countries have the
right to say: Perhaps, in that case, we should also discuss
the question of whether the imperialists in the capitalist
countries will rule for a long time or whether it is not

(Zpl^)m h3nd °Ver P°Wer t0 the W°rkin£ Pe°Ple?
Why Mr. Eisenhower and Mr. Dulles, do you believe

hat you can raise the question of the socialist system in
the European People's Democracies and in the Soviet
Union while not wanting to grant other countries an equal
right to raise the same question with regard to the capital-
ist countries? But we do net raise and are not going to
raise the question of the social system in one country or
another for discussion at international meetings, inas-
much as each people settles this matter as it wishes. We
support the principle of non-intervention by one state in
the internal affairs of others.

And we say to the representatives of the Western Pow-
ers: Let us pursue a policy of peaceful co-existence and
not interfere in one another's internal affairs. Interven-
tion by one state in the internal affairs of other states,
as history has shown, inevitably leads to conflicts and

armed clashes. IrlrkorV also shows that the imperialists'
attempts to impose their will upon peoples that have won
liberation from capitalist oppression have ended in shame-
ful failure for the imperialists. (Applause.)

This is our opinion on the question.

Now let us turn to the German question. As soon as the
desirability of a summit conference is mentioned, the gov-
erning circles of certain Western Powers consider it nec-
essary to push the so-called German question into the
foreground and demand that precisely this issue be dis-
cussed by an international conference. But what is the
German question in present-day conditions? It is, above
all, the question of relations between the two sovereign
siates with different social systems now existing on Ger-
man soil. It is the problem of contact, rapprochement and
unification in one form or another of the two states, with
the aim of restoring the national unity of Germany as a
single peace-loving and democratic state.

The Soviet Union has more than once set out its views
on this question, declaring that the German question can
be solved only by the German people themselves. The So-
viet Union, for its part, will do everything to help the
reunification of Germany. On what basis must such reuni-
fication be effected? I think that the Germans themselves
will decide this matter. Obviously Herr Adenauer will not
want the economy of West Germany to be rebuilt along
socialist lines. It is also obvious that the working people
of the German Democratic Republic will not want to abol-
ish their socialist gains and will not agree to restore cap-
italism. Therefore it is necessary to recognize the his-
torical fact that two states with different social systems
exist in Germany — the socialist German Democratic Re-
public and the capitalist Federal Republic of Germany.
With the aim of peacefully unifying the country, the Gov-
ernment of the German Democratic Republic has made
a reasonable proposal first to create a German confedera-
tion, which would be a union by treaty of two sovereign

states, in order to pursue a common policy on a definite
range of external and internal questions.

Ignoring all the previous declarations of the Soviet Gov-
ernment on the German question and the very fact of the
existence of two sovereign German states, Mr. Eisenhower
in his message again urges "that we now proceed vigor-
ously to bring about the reunification of Germany by free
elections, as we agreed "

But it is common knowledge that there was never any
such agreement! A great deal is being written on this sub-
ject in the Western bourgeois press, including American
newspapers and magazines. This, for instance, is what
the American historian, F. Schuman, wrote:

"I am at a loss to understand what purpose can be served
beyond obfuscation by editorial and official misrepre-
sentation of Soviet policy toward Germany. Why keep re-
peating that the rulers of Russia consented at Geneva in
1955 to the reunification of the Reich and later repudiated
their pledge?

"At the summit conference it was agreed that the reuni-
fication of Germany by means of free elections shall be
carried out in conformity with the national interests of
the German people and the interests of European security
At Geneva, and long before Geneva, and ever since Ge-
neva, in hundreds of policy statements and diplomatic
Notes the men of Moscow who govern the land which suf-
fered trie most appalling losses of any of the belligerents

?Jr,W* WarS unleashed by German aggression, have
defined European security' in terms of the demilitariza-
tion and neutralization of Germany

"We may concur or dissent. But we do no good it
seems to me, to hurl accusations of 'bad faith ' °

We haVe declared and declare now that we are not
going to meet to discuss the question of the People s De
mocracies and the German question in the manner pro -

th°eSse my r eSSrS- Eisenhow^ Dulles and Adenauer. On
these questions our position is clear.

In his message Mr. Eisenhower puts forward, "as the
most important problem which faces the world today," the
demand to ban the use of outer (interplanetary) space tor
testing war missiles and to end the manufacture of weap-
ons which involve the use of outer space.

So that is the question they are interested in! We say:
Let us ban the testing of atomic and hydrogen weapons.
These weapons are manufactured in the United States,
in Britain, in the Soviet Union, and it is also said that
France will soon be manufacturing them. Agreement on
the prohibition of tests of these weapons could be reached
on the basis of equality. To control the implementation
of this agreement would not be difficult since, given the
present level of techniques, it is not possible to keep ex-
plosions of atom and hydrogen bombs secret.

But we are told: Let us establish control. We have al-
ready expressed our willingness to accept reasonable con-
trol which would preclude the possibility of staging secret
explosions. The Western Powers, however, obstructing a
solution of the problems involving the prohibition of atom-
ic and hydrogen weapons, now raise quite another ques-
tion: the prohibition of the use of outer (interplanetary)
space— that is to say, in fact, the banning of interconti-
nental ballistic rockets. But, pray, the Soviet Union has
such rockets and the Western Powers have not. Thus, the
United States Government wants to single out from the
general problem of disarmament only one question — the
intercontinental rocket— without wishing to take any
practical steps towards banning weapons of mass annihi-
lation. What the United States intends by such a proposal
is to ban weapons which can threaten the territory of the
United States, but to retain all the other types of weapons
with the help of which the United States would like to ter-
rorize all the world. That means it wants to ban what it
has not got, while continuing to arm. No, gentlemen,
things are never like that!

Of course, one cannot deny the importance of the ques-

tion of control over the use of outer space, but this ques-
tion must be regarded as part of the general problem of
disarmament, including the prohibition of atomic and
hydrogen weapons. In the interests of strengthening peace,
with the object of reaching agreement on disarmament,
the Soviet Union would also be willing to discuss the ques-
tion of the intercontinental ballistic rocket, if the Western
Powers consent to the prohibition of atomic and hydrogen
weapons, the discontinuation of tests and the closing
down of the military bases with which the United States
has ringed the Soviet Union and other socialist countries
The imperialist circles of the United States want to
retain their military bases, to set up sites for launching
rockets from the territory of countries on our border and
thus to threaten us daily, declaring that they can wipe
out the towns of the Soviet Union. For it is a fact that
it is not we who are threatening the United States with
our bases (we have no military bases whatsoever in any
country), but the Western Powers that are setting up
many such bases. But we say: If the American military
bases lie near the frontiers of the Soviet Union, then vice
versa, the Soviet Union lies near these bases. And should
the aggressors launch military operations, the Soviet
Union already has a tested and highly efficient weapon,
not only to destroy those bases but also to deal crushing
retaliatory blows at more remote objectives.

So let us not frighten one another, but show commor
sense and agree on a mutually acceptable basis to end
the cold war and the arms race, to create conditions of
peacefu 1 co-existence between states, to promote world
peace. (Prolonged applause.)

I should like to say a few words in connection with
Mr Eisenhower s allegations that it is difficult to come
to terms with the Soviet Government because it consists
of atheists, godless men, while the Governments of the
Western Powers are allegedly guided by a morality based
on religious principles. Therefore, they ask, how can one

negotiate with a government which is not bound by reli-
gious morality?

Mr. Eisenhower insists that the future does not belong to
the idea of a regimented godless state, but to people who
are God-fearing, to the peace-loving people of the world.

Mr. President clearly wants to compromise us in some
way in the eyes of public opinion, wishing to stress that
it is impossible to reach agreement with the Soviet lead-
ers because they do not believe in God. He seems to say
that a government which adheres to atheistic views does
evil, while a government which believes in God allegedly
does good.

Mr. Eisenhower is himself well aware that this is far
from the truth. I wish to draw your attention to the facts,
and the facts show the following:

People who say that they believe in God and are al-
legedly guided by divine principles began the aggressive
war against Egypt. It was not the atheists, not the So-
viet Government that started the war, but the Prime Min-
ister of Britain, Sir Anthony Eden, and the Prime Minis-
ter of France, M. Guy Mollet, who after saying their pray-
ers, gave orders to British and French troops to bomb
Cairo and kill civilians, women, old men and children.

Meanwhile the Soviet Union, whose leaders are athe-
ists, together with other peace-loving states, exerted great
efforts to stop that war. And, as is common knowledge,
the Soviet Union's contribution was great. Consequently
the war was started by people who consider themselves
religious and declare that they are performing works ac-
ceptable to God, while the Soviet Government, made up
of atheists, did everything to stop it. The question there-
fore arises, whose morality is sounder and whose morali-
ty is more humane?

But to proceed. The leaders of some governments who
constantly appeal to God were energetically inciting Tur-
key to an aggressive war against Syria. A new and bloody
war was to have been unleashed in that area. The So-

viet Union did everything; it could to avert a new war. It
should be frankly said that this is greatly to the credit of
the Soviet Union and the Soviet Government.

Regardless of creed or colour, the Soviet people are
guided by the interests of strengthening peace.

Or take yet another case: governments headed by peo-
ple who declare that they believe in God are today waging
a bloody war in Algeria. The forces of these governments,
which are made up of people who "believe" in God, even
have among them priests who give their blessing to the
killing of people and pray for the victory of the arms
which kill defenceless Arabs in Algeria-

There, gentlemen, is your belief in God!

Other governments, also made up of religious people,
declare that they are guided by divine principles, but do
not do anything to put an end to this extermination of
human beings. In this way, "religious" governments kill
people, using the Cross and their belief in God as, a
screen. Is that justice? British planes bomb the villages of
the tiny state of Yemen, killing children and old folk, and
this is not regarded as a violation of religious morality
because it is "coloured" people who die.

Maybe the President will recall that people professing
their piety did everything to remove and expel from Guate-
mala a government they did not like and a President whom
they did not want, organizing intervention in the interests
of the profits of a handful of monopolists. All this was also
done in the name of strengthening faith in the Lord.

I must mention, Mr. President, the fact that the athe-
istic Government of the Soviet Union insists on banning
atomic and hydrogen weapons, while statesmen who start
and finish their speeches with invocations to God wish
to retain these death-dealing weapons and engage in
every imaginable subterfuge to prevent an agreement to
ban these weapons. If God really existed, would He not
condemn these statesmen who take His name in vain?

And who was it who gave orders to drop the first atom

bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which killed thou-
sands upon thousands of people, including defenceless
women, old men and children? The man who gave these
orders, we know, was the then president of the United States.
Mr. Truman considers himself a pious man and always
concluded his speeches with an invocation to God. He was
lavish with words about peace, humanity and brother-
hood. But you, Mr. President, have nowhere censured these
cruel actions on the part of Mr. Truman.

You, Mr. President, like every unbiased man, clearly
realize that the Soviet Government has always faithfully
fulfilled its obligations. You are aware also that many
statesmen, while professing their belief in God, often act
directly to the contrary. Please recall how some govern-
ments went back on their obligations to hold free elections
in Viet-Nam. I could cite numerous other similar instances.
Therefore, Mr. Eisenhower, let us not rake up religious
issues.

We stand for religious freedom and respect for the re-
ligious views of every man and every people. But at the
same time we hold that no one should kill people using re-
ligion as a screen or utilize belief in God to the detriment
of other peoples. Let us not make these matters a subject
for dispute.

Comrades, in reply to the proposals of the Soviet Gov-
ernment, messages have been received from Mr. Macmil-
lan, the Prime Minister of Britain, M. Gaillard, the Prime
Minister of France, Herr Adenauer, the Chancellor of the
Federal Republic of Germany, and the Heads of Govern-
ment of a number of other states.

Mr. Macmillan has agreed with the Soviet Government's
opinion on the usefulness of personal contacts between
the statesmen of the Soviet Union and the Western Pow-
ers. He writes:

"You say that personal contacts between Soviet states-
men and Western statesmen could in your view contri-
bute greatly towards the achievement of mutual under-

standing. I agree that such meetings do have their part
to play in reaching the settlements we all desire."

The Prime Minister of Britain stated that the Soviet
Government's proposal for a summit conference was being
studied by the British Government and that a reply would
be sent later.

We express the hope that the British Government will
eventually conclude that the solution of the most pressing
international problems above all requires the convocation
of a summit conference.

It will be recalled that Mr. Macmillan submitted a pro-
posal to conclude a pact between the NATO and Warsaw
Treaty countries.

The Soviet Government took a positive view of Mr. Mac-
millan's statement on the conclusion of a non-aggression
pact between the countries concerned.

Unfortunately Mr. Macmillan, apparently influenced by
certain forces, later departed somewhat from his original
proposal. In this context the question arises: Are not some
circles afraid of the very idea of a non-aggression pact,
the conclusion of which the Soviet Union has been consist-
ently advocating— an idea which is being increasingly
supported by all the peace-loving peoples and the govern-
ments of a number of states?

Mr. Macmillan defends the North Atlantic Alliance and
the present foreign policy of the Western Powers, attempt-
ing at the same time to shift the responsibility for the
breakdown of the disarmament talks on to the Soviet
Union. Ignoring the concrete plan for disarmament pro-
posed by the Soviet Union, and specifically the plan for
the ending of nuclear tests and the prohibition of nuclear
weapons as the first step towards disarmament, Mr. Mac-
millan again brings the Western Powers' plan which we
have already rejected to the fore as a basis for disarma-
ment talks. He is in effect opposed to the proposal to set
up an atom-free zone in Europe.

Mr. Macmillan's message does not reply to a number of

questions raised in the Soviet Government's message of
December 10; in particular nothing is said about the So-
viet proposals for the Middle East, about the reduction of
foreign armed forces in Germany and the ending of war
propaganda by press and radio, which gives rise to mu-
tual distrust and suspicion.

M. Gaillard, the Prime Minister of France, in his reply
opposes the Soviet Government's concrete proposals for
easing international tension. He explains his disagree-
ment with the Soviet proposals on the renunciation of the
use of nuclear weapons by saying that such a measure
would not help to reduce the danger of war but, on the
contrary, would only increase it. The possession of nuclear
weapons by certain Powers, he alleges, can of itself halt
any aggression.

Such assertions can hardly be accepted by ordinary
people who wish to live in peace and are fighting against
the threat of another war. Indeed, is it 'possible to live
calmly when aircraft carrying atomic and hydrogen bombs
fly overhead every day and every hour? Does this not re-
semble the position of a man, doomed to execution, over
whose head hangs the knife of the guillotine? And this
man has to lie and wait, not knowing when the knife will
fall and cut off his head. JUa_aJmih1p position to be in.
Statesmen, particularly those of the Great Powers, on
whom depends the decision to prohibit atomic and hydro-
gen weapons, must see to it that this problem is solved as
soon as possible in order to free mankind from the ter-
rible threat and relieve it of this burden.

M. Gaillard questions the effectiveness of the proposal
to set up an atom-free zone in Europe on the grounds that
it allegedly ignores the political aspect of the European

problem.

He also rejects the Soviet proposal for the conclusion
of a non-aggression pact between the NATO and Warsaw
Treaty countries.

But at the end of M. Gaillard's message there are re-

marks with which one cannot but agree. He points out,
among other things, that our governments should be guid-
ed in their behaviour by a spirit of mutual understanding
and loyalty, that "the agreement, promoting even a par-
tial settlement of concrete issues . . . would be accompanied
by a solemn reaffirmation of the will of the contracting
parties never to resort to aggression."

The message expresses readiness to "study ways and
means of examining afresh the problems dividing us" in
disarmament and to "resume the discussion on the specific
problems of Europe," including the projects put forward
by the Soviet Government.

While agreeing with the principle of holding a confer-
ence of Heads of Government, M. Gaillard makes it con-
tingent on a preliminary conference of Foreign Ministers
in order to define properly the programme for a possible
summit conference, making the reservation that the For-
eign Ministers would not have competence to discuss the
question in substance.

This stand of the French Government differs from that
of the United States Government, which, it will be re-
called, insists on the convening of a Foreign Ministers con-
ference to discuss the substance of international problems.
I must dwell on the attitude of the Government of the
Federal Republic of Germany. In his January 15 broad-
cast, Herr Adenauer, Chancellor of the Federal Republic
of Germany, described the Soviet Government's message
as a carefully prepared manoeuvre which made no serious
effort to reach mutual understanding. He made an unsub-
stantiated statement to the effect that the "Soviets are
now seeking above all to create confusion in the world."
Let us leave such groundless assertions to Herr Ade-
nauer's conscience.

The convening of a conference, says Herr Adenauer,
will yield nothing because, if not crowned with success,'
it will only further worsen the situation. Nevertheless the
proposal for a conference should be accepted, with the

reservation that not too many participants should be in-
vited, and that careful diplomatic preparation should es-
tablish whether mutual understanding is possible.

Herr Adenauer also opposes the plan for setting up an
atom-free zone in Central Europe.

In his official reply to the Soviet Government's message,
Herr Adenauer sets out the Soviet Government's stand
on the reunification of Germany incorrectly. He asserts
that the Heads of Government of the Four Powers at the
Geneva Conference allegedly reached agreement on the
reunification of Germany. I have already said that such
an assertion is not in accordance with reality and is at
variance with the facts.

The attitude of Herr Adenauer's Government has aroused
disappointment and censure, not only on the part of
world opinion, but also in West Germany herself. The So-
cial-Democratic Party group in the Bundestag stated that
Herr Adenauer's reply "in general is not conducive to any
progress in disarmament or in reunification, because it is
confined either to rejecting accusations or to repeating
well-known reproaches to Moscow. Concrete possibilities
to advance the cause of disarmament are rejected." The
Free Democratic Party group in the Bundestag also cen-
sures the fact that the "Federal Government categorically
rejects the idea of setting up an atom-free zone in Eu-
rope."

Comrades, the Soviet Government believes that the time
is ripe to convene a conference of leading statesmen on
a high level with the participation of Heads of Govern-
ment. We are ready to take part in such a conference at
any time.

Are there at present any definite international problems
which demand urgent solution and which can be solved to-
day? There can only be one answer: Yes, there are such
questions, and they are not few in number.

Can statesmen who have even the slightest concern for
he destinies of the peoples remain indifferent and tol

erate the present state of affairs when the race, growing
like an avalanche to produce weapons of ever-increasing
destructive power, creates the danger of the catastrophe
of war?

Can we tolerate the fact that the cold war atmosphere
brings this danger increasingly close and makes it in-
creasingly real?

The Soviet Government has already officially informed
all the Powers of its views on the questions which should
be discussed first of all. Here are a number of them:

What prevents agreement on the immediate ending of
atomic and hydrogen weapons tests, in order to put an end
to the hazards to health resulting from tests? Is this ques-
tion not ripe for the most urgent discussion? It is!

Is it not high time to agree at last on the ending of
the so-called cold war? For more than 10 years the world
has been living in an atmosphere of cold war, which is
keeping the peoples at fever pitch. On its basis the ene-
mies of peace have been systematically cultivating enmi-
ty and hatred among the peoples and fanning war hyste-
ria. The cold war and the arms race, plunging the world
further and further down the slope to atomic war— all
these are things that are closely interconnected. Is it not
high time to put an end to the cold war? It is!

The same should be said of putting an end to war propa-
ganda which is carried on day in and day out in some West-
ern countries and which is becoming increasingly unre-
strained. Who can deny that there are civilians and milita-
ry men in the United States who make systematic and
open calls for war, including atomic war? It is high time
to recognize that propaganda exercises of this kind have
become far too dangerous under present conditions for
them to be allowed to continue!

We also believe that it is high time to reach agreement
on the reduction of the number of foreign troops stationed
in Germany and other European states. When we say of the
reduction of these forces, we mean that this must be only
the beginning, only the first stage, because eventually all

foreign troops must be withdrawn from the territories of
other countries. Would not this be natural in peacetime?
Is it not high time today to agree at least on the need for
the Powers concerned to take this important step?

Reality prompts the need for solving the important prob-
lem of the setting up in Central Europe of a zone free from
every type of nuclear weapon and embracing such states as
the German Democratic Republic, Poland, Czechoslovakia
and the Federal Republic of Germany. It is common knowl-
edge that three of these countries have already expressed
their consent to the setting up of such a zone. There is no
need to prove the exceptional importance and value to the
cause of peace of the implementation of this proposal put
forward by the Polish Government.

Some foreign leaders declare that appropriate control
is needed for the setting up of an atom-free zone in Europe.
The Soviet Union is ready to examine this proposal
and to accept the establishment of the necessary control.

The question of the situation in the Middle East is also
pressing. All of us have in recent years more than once
seen how, now in one, now in another part of this region,
dangerous hotbeds of war have emerged which threatened
to plunge all mankind into the abyss of war. That is why
we regard it as a duty of the Great Powers to agree as
soon as possible on the renunciation of the use of force in
settling Middle East issues and of intervention in the
affairs of the countries of the area.

Finally, who can deny the need for doing away with
such ugly phenomena in international economic relations as
discrimination, all kinds of black lists and similar artifi-
cial obstacles to international trade? It can with confidence
be said that all these barriers to the free development
of international trade erected during the cold war do not
even benefit the states which have created them, but only
poison the international atmosphere and provide grist for
the mill of the enemies of peace.

In fact, trade discrimination was created in order to

poison the atmosphere. If the rulers of some countries
expected to weaken the military potential of the Soviet
Union in this way, they have failed. Some probably
thought that if sales of strategic goods to the Soviet
Union were permitted it would in some measure help to
strengthen the military might and promote the advance
of the military science and technology in our country. But
reality has shown the utter bankruptcy of such views- It
is common knowledge that the Soviet Union, despite re-
strictions and discrimination in trade, relying on the devel-
opment of national science and technology and the might
of its industry, has designed the best types of armaments
—a fact which the Western Powers themselves have ad-
mitted. We do not speak of trade in armaments— let the
Western Powers not sell arms, just as we do not intend
to sell our arms. Nor do we plan to purchase arms. The
issue is quite different— it is a question of normal trade
between countries.

Why are such restrictions and discrimination in inter-
national trade necessary? They are necessary in order to
keep the world in a state of tension, to trouble the waters
and to fish in them, as the saying goes. It is clear that the
rulers of the Western Powers are not prompted by busi-
ness considerations, but by other, quite different, consider-
ations.

I have cited as instances only some questions which in
our opinion can be regarded as ripe for immediate discus-
sion at a conference of leading statesmen. We do not ex-
clude other important questions which could be discussed
at the summit meeting and definite, positive results
achieved.
• It goes without saying that, given the desire on both
sides, agreement on many questions is possible. But for a
summit conference to yield positive results, the status quo
must be recognized, that is to say, the fact that there are
two systems of states in the world— the capitalist and
the socialist systems. The principle of peaceful co-existence

should be recognized, and there should be no interfer-
ence in the affairs of other states. If all this is recognized
and the ruling circles of the Western countries do not
seek a solution of international problems through war
against the socialist countries, it will not be at all difficult
to reach agreement on urgent international problems in
the interests of consolidating peace.

If the status quo is not recognized, if the socialist states
are ignored, their sovereign rights violated and their
domestic affairs made the object for interference, then it
is, of course, absolutely impossible to agree. Such a poli-
cy is nothing but the policy of "positions of strength," a
policy of war. But this has already been tried against the
Soviet Union and it is well known that the lovers of such
a policy suffered total defeat. Such was the case when the
Soviet Union was the only socialist country. What can
the imperialists hope for now, when the Soviet Union is
no longer the only socialist state, when the great Chinese
People's Republic and all the socialist countries of Europe
and Asia stand with it in the mighty camp of socialism,
when this camp unites about 1,000 million people? Only
madmen and adventurers can ignore this and hope for a
solution of international problems through war. If the im-
perialists unleash another war it will inevitably lead to
the destruction of those who start it. The peoples will do
away for ever with a system which brings mankind untold
suffering and bloody wars.

The Soviet Government is ready to discuss any ques-
tions designed to strengthen peace and establish greater
confidence among the states, to discuss these questions
with its partners. Mr. Eisenhower, for instance, recently
put forward in one of his speeches the idea of pooling the
efforts of the Soviet Union and the United States to com-
bat such scourges of mankind as cancer, tuberculosis and
malaria. We believe that one can agree with this. One
could list many other questions, such as the struggle
against poliomyelitis, locusts, glanders and foot-and-

mouth disease. We are successfully co-operating with
Iran and Afghanistan in combating locusts. There are many
other matters regarding which, far from hindering co-oper-
ation, we are doing our utmost to extend it. Although
not all these problems are acute or dangerous to our coun-
try, we are nevertheless ready to co-operate with coun-
tries where such problems are particularly pressing. We
shall be pleased to pool our efforts with those of other
countries in solving such problems.

But I hope you will understand me correctly, Mr. Presi*
dent; these are not the issues on which mankind awaits
agreement between the Great Powers. It is with hope and
anxiety that the peoples of all countries watch for the so-
lution of the fundamental problems in the relations be-
tween states. They expect, above all, a relaxation in inter-
national tension, so that people are not threatened with
a war of extermination, so that when they go to bed they
need not fear lest they never wake up again, so that they
need not fear losing their husbands, fathers, children,
wives and mothers in this war.

We should above all bear this in mind, because people
all over the world, all mankind, are waiting with anxiety
and hope for a solution to these vital problems. (Pro-
longed applause.)

Comrades, the Soviet Government and the Central Com-
mittee of our Party have always stood, and firmly stand
by the Leninist positions of peace and friendship among
the peoples, by the positions of peaceful co-existence be-
tween states with different social systems. We want abso-
lute non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states.
We have strictly observed, and shall continue to ob-
serve this inviolable rule. It is also imperative that all
states, big and small, should respect the independence and
sovereignty of other states, that an improvement in the
relations between the Great Powers should not be brought
about at the expense of the interests of the small states.

For our part we shall continue to do everything to attain
these noble aims.

The forces for peace and friendship among the peoples
have grown immeasurably and continue steadily to grow.
In the forefront of these forces are the peoples of the So-
viet Union, the Chinese People's Republic, all the social-
ist countries of Europe and Asia, the Communist and
Workers' parties of all countries. The Peace Manifesto,
adopted at the Meeting of the Communist and Workers'
Parties in Moscow, has found an echo in the hearts of men
and women all over the world. The call "Peace to the
World!" has become a genuine expression of the aspira-
tions and hopes of the peoples of all the continents of the
world.

That is why the ruling circles of certain states have
been compelled to disguise their real aims. Fostering their
aggressive schemes, they often resort to peaceable phrases
in order to lull the vigilance of the peoples.

In these circumstances the peoples must show great or-
ganization and cohesion in the struggle for peace, staunch-
ness and persistence in the maintenance and strength-
ening of world peace.

The Soviet people, taking pride in their country which ^
is implementing its great plans for building communism,
are confidently marching from victory to victory with un-
shaken faith in their inexhaustible strength. We are led
along the Leninist road to the triumph of communism by
the great Communist Party of the Soviet Union. (Stormy,
prolonged applause. All rise. Cries of "Glory to our Com-
munist Party!" followed by further prolonged applause.
Cries of "Long live the Leninist Central Committee of our
Party! Hurrah!". Further stormy, prolonged applause.)

INTERVIEW GIVEN TO AXEL SPRINGER,

WEST GERMAN PUBLISHER, AND HANS ZEHRER,

EDITOR OF DIE WELT

January 29, 1958

The West German publisher, Axel Springer, and the edi-
tor of the Hamburg newspaper Die Welt, Hans Zehrer, re-
quested an interview with N. S. Khrushchov, First Sec-
retary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party
of the Soviet Union.

They were received by Khrushchov on January 29 and
had a long talk with him. Below we publish the text of the
interview.

Springer: Mr. Khrushchov, we thank you very much for
having received us. We have come to ask you a few ques-
tions which agitate us in view of the grave international
situation and the situation in Germany. Allow me to start
with the first question right away.

Would it not be a welcome initiative and, at the same
time, a contribution to the easing of international tension
if discussion of the possibility of restoring the unity of
Germany were started?

Answer: This is my first meeting with representatives of
the press of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning
issues which are of interest to public opinion in West Ger-
many. It was natural to expect that my interviewers would
not pass over a question which, it seems, is on the tip of
everyone's tongue in Germany, whether in the western or

the eastern part. That is the question of the possibilities
for restoring the national unity of the country. I must say
at once that the key to the solution of this problem about
which all Germans are concerned is to be sought in Bonn
and Berlin rather than in Moscow, Washington, Paris or
London.

This, of course, is not due to any lack of concern in the
Soviet Union for a settlement of the German issue or any
lack of understanding and sympathy for the desire of the
Germans to unite their country. We Russian Communists,
as Marxist-Leninists, have always championed the right of
nations to self-determination and the formation of inde-
pendent national states, and that is why we cannot remain
indifferent to the fact that the people of one single nation
are living on different sides of a frontier running across
their country, to the fact that economic ties between vari-
ous parts of Germany which have grown up through the
ages have been disrupted and that German families in
their everyday life suffer from the abnormal conditions re-
sulting from the division of their country. The Soviet
Union is prepared to continue to do everything it can to
put an end to this unnatural situation in Germany, which
arose in spite of the Soviet Union's efforts to preserve the
unity of a German state renovated on a peaceful and dem-
ocratic basis after the war.

Question: How do you understand the changing of this
unnatural situation — the division of the German people?

Answer: I can tell you that it would be a profound mis-
take to expect that the unity of your country can be in-
troduced by anyone from outside, or that the intermediary
role of any governments can replace the efforts of the Ger-
man people themselves. Unity can only be the product of
rapprochement and agreement between the German Dem-
ocratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany.
More than eight years have elapsed since the administra-
tive functions in Germany were transferred from the Four
Powers to the Germans themselves. During that time two

independent German states have been established, with
their own parliaments and governments responsible for
the development of Germany and the future of the German
nation.

I have twice had occasion to visit the German Demo-
cratic Republic in recent years and I have seen for myself
the striking changes that have taken place there since the
war. I think that you too will not deny that today each of
the German states is separated from the other by a deep
gulf and in order to bridge that gulf to achieve their uni-
fication one should, first and foremost, draw the necessary
conclusions from the obvious fact that the German Demo-
cratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany are
not merely states where people of one nationality, speak-
ing the same language, live and work, but that they are
also states with different economic foundations and with
different political and social systems.

We do not, of course, intend to impose on anyone our
recipes for a solution of the German problem. Besides,
it is hardly possible that anyone other than the states di-
rectly concerned can put forward any viable proposals
which would adequately take stock of the diversity and
complexity of the problems arising and give grounds for
hope that the existing serious obstacles can be overcome.

In its recent letter to Federal Chancellor Adenauer the
Soviet Government noted the unique conditions in which
the problem of German reunification has to be solved,
namely, that what is involved here is not a problem that is
common in international practice, or a movement along
a beaten track that has been tried and tested, but the task
of peacefully uniting two sovereign states with different
social and economic systems — a task which has arisen for
the first time in history. Will there be any hope of success
in solving such a problem if we act in accordance with
patterns developed in the past and try mechanically to
merge two states developing in such widely divergent di-
rections?

Question: We are aware of the Soviet Government's
view that the problem of German reunification can be
solved only by direct negotiations between the two German
governments. How do you see the achievement of such
understanding in practice?

Answer: It would appear quite natural that the unifica-
tion of Germany is a two-sided process which cannot be
accomplished without the participation of both German
states. But the Government of one of them, namely, the
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, pretends
that there is no other German state on the map, that is
to say, that part of Germany with which, if we are to be-
lieve its statements, it wishes to unite. It is difficult not
to observe that this attitude of the West German Govern-
ment is at variance with common sense. Does it not indi-
cate a desire to remain aloof from the search for ways lead-
ing to German reunification, and to justify its own inac-
tion by an emphatically hostile attitude towards the only
possible partner in an agreement? Was this not the idea
behind the allegation that the German Democratic Repub-
lic needs "recognition" from the Government of the Feder-
al Republic of Germany? I have no doubt that the Ger-
man Democratic Republic is not concerned about "recog-
nition" by the Federal Republic of Germany to any great-
er extent than the Federal Republic of Germany is con-
cerned about "recognition" by the German Democratic Re-
public. But that is not the point. The point is whether the
two German states will work together to solve the nation-
al problems of the German people, or whether the cause
of unification is to mark time while the German Democrat-
ic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany contin-
ue to draw apart.

When I am asked about the possible ways of achieving
a rapprochement between the two German states and the
unification of the country, I can only say with complete
conviction that I do not see — and apparently there do not
exist — any other proposals designed to solve the problem

which promise success, apart from that put forward by
the Government of the German Democratic Republic
for a confederation of the two German states — that
is to say, for a union by treaty of the German Democrat-
ic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany with
the aim of pursuing a common policy on a definite range
of domestic and external issues, and primarily bringing
about their rapprochement on the basis of joint action
to ease tension in the relations between states and remove
the danger of a new war.

Question: The German problem depends in some meas-
ure on a relaxation of international tension. On the other
hand, that relaxation hinges to some extent on a settle-
ment of the German issue. What could the Federal Gov-
ernment do, for its part, actively to help solve both these
issues?

Answer: It is a good thing that people in West Germany
are seeking an answer to this very vital question. We have
repeatedly expressed our conviction that Germany in gen-
eral, and the Federal Republic of Germany in particular,
has had, and still has, great opportunities for exerting an
influence on the situation in Europe and elsewhere. It
would be no exaggeration to say that if the Federal Re-
public of Germany combined its efforts with those of the
Soviet Union and other states in order to ease interna-
tional tension and prevent a new war, peace on the Euro-
pean continent would be assured. With this in mind, the
Soviet Government, you will recall, has repeatedly ap-
proached the Federal Government with proposals which
have gone beyond the framework of relations between our
two countries and which concerned the settlement of a
wide range of international problems which are the source
of tension and friction in relations between states.

Unfortunately there is no evidence as yet of the Feder-
al Government's readiness to act in that direction. So far
the Federal Government seems to have preferred to ignore
the proposals which have been made to it and which have

been designed to safeguard peace, rather than respond to
them. It has at the same time declined to take the initiative
itself.

Question: What are the proposals you have in mind?

Answer: To be more precise about the decisions now
confronting the Federal Republic of Germany, I should
like to dwell, primarily, on a question which opens up
wide avenues for peace, namely, the idea of creating an
atom-free zone in Europe. You will recall that this idea
emerged in connection with the fact that Europe, being al
ready an area of dangerous tension, was increasingly be-
coming, not so much a powder magazine as an atomic ar-
senal. Apprehensive of these developments, statesmen and
public men in many countries are seeking a solution. The
Polish Government has shown valuable initiative in put-
ting forward the idea of creating an atom-free zone in
Europe which, in its opinion, could, together with Poland,
include Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic
and the Federal Republic of Germany. The Governments
of Czechoslovakia and the German Democratic Republic
have already agreed to participate in such a zone, and in
order for it to be established this zone now in fact needs
only the support of the West German Government.

We are aware that in West German political circles
there are both supporters and opponents of the Federal
Republic's participation in an atom-free zone. As far as
I am aware, you are among those who support the inclu-
sion of th^ Federal Republic of Germany in such a zone,
inasmuch as this would help to solve the German prob-
lem. But I must add that to make the establishment of
the zone dependent on the solution of other issues on
which there is no agreement is to complicate the reaching
of agreement on the atom-free zone, whose benefits for
the Federal Republic of Germany you recognize.

It seems that those who take a negative view of Po-
land's proposal underestimate the importance of an atom-
free zone to the security of West Germany, ignoring an ef-

fective means of warding off the danger of destructive
weapons being used against Germany. Of course, one can
turn one's back on reality and shut one's eyes to the
danger, but that does not make it any the less.

Persons who hold important positions in West Germany
and are responsible for her policy say that such a zone
would be "illusory" because, they say, there are no guar-
antees that an atomic war will not be unleashed on the
territories of the states that will belong to an atom-free
zone. What can be said about such objections? In my
opinion, such arguments are either the result of unwill-
ingness to see the real meaning of the proposal to set
up an atom-free zone, or of unwillingness to do anything
useful in general to prevent an atomic war in Europe.

In fact, the Soviet Government, it will be recalled,
has proclaimed its readiness to act jointly with other Pow-
ers to provide reliable international guarantees for the
atomic neutrality of the member-states of an atom-free
zone in order to preclude the possibility of such weapons
being used in the zone. In addition, the Soviet Union
believes it to be possible for the states concerned to agree
on broad forms of control over measures involved in
creating an atom-free zone. All this proves that asser-
tions about the "illusory" nature of the atom-free zone
are, to say the least, contrived.

The Federal Republic is now faced with yet another
vital issue. I refer to the stationing of American atomic
bases and rocket launching sites in West Germany.

I am aware that as soon as we raise the subject of
atomic and rocket bases, a hue and cry is raised in West
Germany about some kind of threat from us. I should like
to see the West understand, at long last, that we have
not been threatening anyone nor do we intend to do so
and that there, is nothing more alien to the Soviet state
than a "positions of strength" policy, a policy that in-
deed does involve intimidation and pressure. But we have
always spoken of the disastrous consequences which could

arise as a result of the preparation of atomic war, and
we consider it our duty to continue to do so in the future.
The peoples must be told the whole truth about what
awaits them if war breaks out. They must have their eyes
open when governments and parliaments make decisions
increasing the danger of an atomic war.

Our warnings to the Government and population of
West Germany contain nothing but the objective facts of
modern science and engineering, well-considered and
authoritative conclusions dictated by the existing situa-
tion. Indeed, many scientists and military specialists in
your own country who have some degree of access to in-
formation about modern weapons and the nature of mili-
tary operations in modern conditions, have issued serious
warnings about the mortal danger to which the Federal
Republic of Germany is being subjected by NATO plans
to make West Germany a launching site for American
atomic and rocket weapons.

I hope that I have made myself clear: If the Federal
Republic intends to make its contribution to easing inter-
national tension, it should first and foremost dissociate
itself from the plans to involve it in the preparation of
an atomic war — the stationing of American atomic and
rocket bases on its territory and the equipping of the
Bundeswehr with atomic weapons.

The efforts of the Federal Government could also be
directed towards solving the question of the conclusion of
a non-aggression pact, in one form or another, between
the NATO and the Warsaw Treaty member-countries —
a question of importance to peace.

One would expect that the Federal Republic of Ger-
many, whose territory abuts on the line dividing these
military groupings, would be no less interested in the con-
clusion of such an agreement than, let us. say, the Soviet
Union or Britain. It would be strange if the Federal Gov-
ernment, whose members frequently claim that there
exists some sort of threat to West Germany from the So-

viet Union, were to refuse to receive an undertaking re-
garding non-aggression from the Warsaw Treaty Organi-
zation.

As far as I am aware, much attention is being paid in
West Germany to the Soviet Government's proposals for
a gradual reduction and subsequently the complete with-
drawal of foreign troops from the territories of all North
Atlantic Alliance and Warsaw Treaty Organization states
and the simultaneous dismantling of foreign military
bases, beginning the implementation of these measures in
Germany. It would seem that such a proposal, which is
in complete accord with the national interests of the
German people, should have been regarded favourably by
the Federal Republic of Germany. With the present con-
centration of troops and military equipment in Germany,
which is abnormal in peacetime, the disengagement of
the armed forces of the Great Powers which are in con-
tact there would also be conducive to the strengthening
of security in Europe.

The Federal Government's well-known opposition to
the proposal to reduce, and subsequently to withdraw, for-
eign troops from Germany is naturally not conducive to
the solution of a problem which is of such importance to
the easing of international tension.

It is also obvious that the Federal Government's re-
fusal to normalize its relations with many countries of
Eastern Europe and Asia, including countries which were
victims of Hitler's aggression, is likewise at variance with
the interests of easing international tension. It is no se-
cret that the Federal Government is entirely responsible
for the fact that its relations with these countries are not
built on a normal peacetime basis. The Government of
the Federal Republic of Germany very recently committed
an act of hostility against Yugoslavia by severing diplo-
matic relations with her, thus introducing a new element of
exacerbation into the situation on the European continent.

In short, given the desire, the Federal Republic of Ger-

many has a most extensive field for activities which would
contribute to a relaxation of international tension: in the
sphere of disarmament, in the sphere of strengthening se-
curity in Europe, and in the sphere of improving rela-
tions with other states. It is at least necessary that the
Federal Republic should refrain from steps which increase
the war danger and international tension.

Since you have asked me for advice on ways in which
the Federal Republic of Germany could help to ease in-
ternational tension, here is what I can say: Statesmen
who are responsible for the policy of the Federal Republic
of Germany would do better to be less concerned about
adhering to the "positions of strength" policy and should
be guided in their activities by what one might call a "posi-
tions of reason" policy — that is to say, they should be
guided by their own national interests and the interests of
strengthening peace.

Question: Is it not time, Mr. Khrushchov, to consider
the question of ending the temporary status which Ger-
many has now had for 12 years and start drawing up a
peace treaty?

Answer: We are aware that the problem of a peace
treaty profoundly agitates the minds of Germans. And
that is understandable. More than 12 years have elapsed
since the end of the Second World War, but the German
people are still without a peace treaty which would write
finis to the war and its consequences. The problem of a
peace treaty is the problem of restoring Germany's com-
plete sovereignty and independence, the problem of her
frontiers and of the withdrawal of foreign troops from her
territory. It is therefore natural that no ersatz agreements,
such as the Paris Agreements, can take the place of a
peace treaty. Such decisions can only be of a transitory na-
ture, because they do not spring from the national interests
of the two German states and are in direct conflict with
the interests of the security of a number of states, above all,
those that took part in the war against Nazi Germany.

But it is one thing to ena the state of war with Ger-
many, which has also been done by the Soviet Govern-
ment in view of the Western Powers' opposition to the
conclusion of a peace treaty with Germany, and another
to conclude a peace treaty, which defines the external
conditions, through the observation of which Germany's
entire development could be protected from every kind of
extraneous interference. During the entire post-war period
the Soviet Government has been working for a funda-
mental settlement of the German problem through the
conclusion of a peace treaty with Germany.

Many facts of the post-war period— I refer to the Pa-
ris Agreements and similar agreements between the
United States and a number of other countries and Japan
—indicate that in present-day circumstances, when the
struggle between the capitalist countries for world mar-
kets, sources of raw materials and spheres for capital in-
vestment has been further sharpened, a defeated state does
not find it easy to secure for itself a just and democratic
peace treaty.

After the First World War the Governments of the United
States, Britain and France divided the world into victors
and vanquished, leaving the aggressive militarist forces
that had unleashed the war in power in Germany. You will
recall that the Soviet Union opposed the predatory Ver-
sailles Treaty. The aftermath of Versailles is well known. It
helped to establish the Hitler regime in Germany and in no
small degree helped to unleash the Second World War.

After the First World War international imperialist
circles incited Germany to turn to the East, mainly by
economic and diplomatic means. Today, they want to
conscript West Germany's military and industrial poten-
tial, her manpower and also the creative genius of her
scientists into the service of an exclusive military group-
ing—the North Atlantic bloc— directed, as everyone knows
only too well, against the Soviet Union and other peace-
loving states and against world peace. The Governments

of the United States, Britain and France, having imposed
the Paris Agreements on the Federal Republic of Ger-
many, are in fact trying to organize post-war relations
in Europe on a historically outdated basis similar to the
Versailles Treaty. This is profoundly mistaken and can
lead to much more disastrous results.

Bearing in mind that there are two sovereign states in
Germany today— the German Democratic Republic and the
Federal Republic of Germany— it is important not to post-
pone the drawing up of a draft peace treaty, in order to
give the German people a clear idea of Germany's pros-
pects for future development. Needless to say, the Ger-
mans themselves— the German Democratic Republic and
the Federal Republic of Germany— must take part in the
drawing up of such a draft treaty. And here again, in my
opinion, it is the proposal of the Government of the Ger-
man Democratic Republic to set up a German confeder-
ation that offers the most realistic possibilities for the
conclusion of a peace treaty with Germany. In that event,
a peace treaty could be concluded both with the organs of
the confederation and with the governments of the states
within that confederation.

Question: What is your idea of the military status of
the future Germany?

Answer: Intrinsically this problem must be governed by
the peace treaty with Germany and must form a compo-
nent part of it. Inasmuch as we stand for the preparation
of a peace treaty with Germany, we are naturally also in
favour of Germany's military status being defined now.
Taking into consideration the special importance attached
to the problem of military status by wide sections of pub-
lic opinion in West Germany, the Soviet Union is pre-
pared to consider this question independently, irrespective
of other provisions of the peace treaty.

In this connection I should like to draw your attention
to the fact that the Government of the German Demo-
cratic Republic has put forward a number of proposals

and carried out practical steps which, as we see it, consti-
tute a suitable foundation for a future agreement on Ger-
many's military status.

We know, in particular, that the German Democratic
Republic has, of its own free will, restricted the strength
of its armed forces to 90,000 men. In the German Demo-
cratic Republic, in contrast to West Germany, conscrip-
tion has not been introduced, and finally, the armed forces
of the German Democratic Republic are under national
command. The fact that the Government of the German
Democratic Republic does not raise the question of equip-
ping its forces with atomic and rocket weapons but, on
the contrary, is making every effort to ensure that there
shall be no atomic and rocket weapons — German or
foreign— on German soil is of particular importance.
Moreover, it is common knowledge that the Government
of the German Democratic Republic has proclaimed its
readiness to withdraw from the Warsaw Treaty Organiza-
tion if the Federal Republic of Germany withdraws from
NATO, and also to reach an agreement with the Govern-
ment of the Federal Republic to establish a limit to the
size of the armed forces of the two German states.

It seems to me that these proposals of the Government
of the German Democratic Republic, and what it has al-
ready done in practice in order to find, jointly with the
Government of the Federal Republic, ways for the unifi-
cation of Germany, contain real and important elements
of the agreement you have in view when you speak of
Germany's military status. One should take into account
the fact that Germany's military status consists of two
parts, as it were, and that an agreement on this problem
depends primarily on those measures of a military nature
which are currently being carried out by each of the
German states.

Can it be said that the Federal Republic, for its part,
is doing everything necessary for an agreement on Ger-
many's military status to be translated into reality? Not

^^"

at all. in contrast to the German Democratic Republic5,
the Federal Republic of Germany has introduced conscrip-
tion. The military units organized there are being placed
at the disposal of the NATO Command. The Government
of the Federal Republic of Germany refuses to discuss an
agreement with the German Democratic Republic es-
tablishing levels for the armed forces of the two German
states.

At the same time the intention of the Government of
the Federal Republic to secure atomic and rocket weapons
for the West German Bundeswehr and to take part in re-
search to produce the latest weapons is becoming increas-
ingly evident. The action of the Government of the Fed-
eral Republic, which are directed towards the use of the
territory of West Germany for American nuclear weapon
dumps and launching sites for rocket and nuclear weap-
ons, is also incompatible with the definition, now or in
the future, of the military status of Germany.

It should be added that not once has the Government
of the Federal Republic shown that it has been prepared
to abstain, in the interests of re-establishing national
unity, from any of the military measures envisaged by the
NATO military and strategic plans. Moreover, it goes out
of its way to stress that it attaches special importance
to the implementation of the military commitments it has
assumed under the Paris Agreements. Flaunting its loyalty
to NATO, the Federal Government has proclaimed its com-
plete solidarity with the plans repeatedly put forward by
the three Western Powers at international conferences for
including the whole of Germany in this military bloc, al-
though such demands can relate only to the realm of fic-
tion.

I should like to stress that inasmuch as the question
has been posed on a purely military plane, I am taking
precisely this aspect of the German problem. But even ifr
for the purpose of clarifying the essence of the question
you have raised, we should confine ourselves to these

somewhat conventional restrictions, even such an abstract
approach reveals that a solution to the problem of Ger-
many's military status acceptable to the parties concerned
can be found only in a rapprochement and mutual under-
standing between the German Democratic Republic and the
Federal Republic of Germany.

We believe that both German states must uncondition-
ally renounce all kinds of weapons of mass destruction,
that is to say, renounce both their own production of atom-
ic, hydrogen and rocket weapons and also the equip-
ping of their armed forces with foreign-made weapons of
this kind, and prevent the building of atomic and rocket
bases belonging to other Powers on their territory. Both
German states, after embarking on the road of re-estab-
lishing national unity, must renounce membership of the
military groupings of the Powers to which they be-
long at the present time. And lastly, the levels of the
armed forces of the two German states must be estab-
lished in conformity with their requirements for self-de-
fence and for ensuring internal security, through an agree-
ment between the Governments of the German Democratic
Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany.

Question: Would it not in your opinion be a good begin-
ning if the movement towards the reunification of the
German people were to start with the normalization of
the situation in Berlin?

Answer: Indeed, the present situation in Berlin cannot
be regarded as normal. Berlin is, we know, the capital
of the German Democratic Republic, while the western
part of the city, namely, the American, British and French
sectors, represent a kind of island within the German
Democratic Republic.

The military authorities of the Western Powers in
Berlin in every way stress their prerogatives as occupa-
tion authorities. Whereas in West Germany some of the
restrictions of the occupation regime which affect the
Germans most have been lifted, in West Berlin these re-

strictions are still in force. It is also well known that
West Berlin is being extensively used for subversive activ-
ities against the German Democratic Republic and other
socialist countries. I must say frankly that as a result
of the policy of the United States, Britain and France, and
also of the Federal Republic of Germany, West Berlin has
become one of the most painful sores of the cold war. It
seems to us that in the interest of the population of
Berlin it is necessary to remove the present tension in
the relations between the German authorities of East and
West Berlin and to achieve co-operation between them,
both in municipal administration and in other spheres.

I think that, given a desire on the part of the Govern-
ment of the Federal Republic and the West Berlin Magis-
trate to find a solution to the Berlin problem acceptable
both to themselves and to the German Democratic Repub-
lic, such a decision could be found, and the Soviet Union
would only welcome such a development.

Question: Mr. Khrushchov, normal diplomatic relations
between the Soviet Union and the Federal Republic of
Germany have already existed for over two years. Do you
think that these relations have brought our peoples closer
to each other? And how do you assess the prospects for
the development of these relations?

Answer: More than two years have elapsed since diplo-
matic relations between the Soviet Union and the Federal
Republic of Germany were established. Was that step a
useful one? The answer to this question is definitely in the
affirmative. I believe that the leaders of the Federal Re-
public of Germany, too, have no reason to take a different
view. The governments of the two countries now have
far greater possibilities for studying and correctly under-
standing each other's views and intentions and for bring-
ing out factors tending to achieve a rapprochement be-
tween the U.S.S.R. and the Federal Republic of Germany
in the interests of strengthening world peace. Some prog-
ress has been achieved in trade. Exchanges in science,

technology and culture are getting under way. A begin-
ning has been made in sport and tourism. But all these
things are simply initial, and I would say, timid steps. Of
course, the beginning is always difficult. But it seems to
me that this is not the only point. Much greater results
could have been achieved had there been no artificial re-
strictions on the development of contacts, as was the case,
for instance, when the authorities of the Federal Republic
refused to issue entry visas to a group of Soviet circus
artistes.

For our part, we always try to give every assistance
to measures facilitating a closer mutual acquaintance
with the material and spiritual riches of both peoples. It
is to be hoped that in this matter, which is in the inter-
ests of both parties, we shall meet with reciprocity on
the part of the Government of the Federal Republic. It
is well known that Germany's well-being has always been
accompanied by the activization of mutual relations and
the extension of economic and other co-operation with
the East, and primarily with Russia in the past and with
the Soviet Union at present.

We attach considerable importance to the successful
completion of the current talks now being held in Moscow
between the government delegations of the U.S.S.R. and
the Federal Republic of Germany, which, as has been
agreed by the two Governments, are aimed at improving
relations between our countries. If we are to judge the pros-
pects of the talks by the results achieved up to date, there
is every reason to expect that they will lead to positive
results on all problems under discussion.

I should like to ask you, Herr Springer, to tell West
German readers that the Soviet Union will make earnest
and consistent efforts to achieve rapprochement and mu-
tual understanding between the U.S.S.R. and the Federal
Republic of Germany. We should like all the remnants of
mistrust and suspicion in the relations between our coun-
tries to be completely removed. In my opinion, the neces-

sary turning-point in the relations between our countries
towards their improvement could be achieved, in partic-
ular, by the establishment of contacts between the parlia-
ments and also between individual statesmen and public
leaders and by the ending of ill-intentioned propaganda.

Springer: We are very grateful for having been given
the opportunity to have a talk with you. Forgive us for
having taken so much of your time.

Khrushchov: It has also been a great pleasure to meet
you and have a talk with you. Such meetings undoubtedly
help to establish better mutual understanding, which is
in the interests of the peoples of our countries.

Pravda, February 8, 1958

INTERVIEW GIVEN TO I. McDONALD,
FOREIGN EDITOR OF THE TIMES

January 31, 1958

On January 31, N. S. Khrushchov granted an interview
to Mr. Iverach McDonald, foreign editor of The Times.
Below we publish a record of the interview.

McDonald: This is my seventh visit to the Soviet Union
and it has been a very interesting trip.

Khrushchov: We are glad when Western representatives
pay us several visits and have an opportunity to see for
themselves the stages of our development.

McDonald: Yes, indeed. I have seen great changes tak-
ing place in recent years. I first came here 26 years ago.
At that time I made a trip down the Volga, visited the
North Caucasus and the Ukraine. It was a bad year for
agriculture. During my present visit I have been pleas-
antly surprised at the enormous progress made in the
countryside, particularly in the last two or three years.

Now let me ask you the following:

I have read with great care the Soviet Government's
statement on the international situation published on Jan-
uary 8. Naturally, I have also read your Minsk speech.
I shall take up one point. As the second item for discus-
sion at a summit conference the Soviet Government pro-
poses the problem of banning atomic and hydrogen weap-
ons. But further on, the same statement says that since
the Governments of the United States and Great Britain

do not wish at the present time to agree to ban nuclear
weapons and destroy stockpiles, "there is nothing else to
be done but to postpone the problems pertaining to a rad-
ical solution of atomic disarmament to a later stage of
the talks." In view of this I should like to know what re-
sults the Soviet Government hopes to achieve by raising the
issue for examination at a top-level conference at this stage.

Khrushchov: This should be regarded as a desire on our
part to achieve a radical solution of disarmament prob-
lems. We favour the eventual abolition of armies and the
adoption of a system of militia, that is to say, to have
no armed forces in the country but militia forces to main-
tain order. As a matter of fact, in the period before the
October Revolution and immediately following it our
Party intended to organize a people's militia instead of
a permanent army. At that time we believed the Western
countries would not attack us. But things took quite a
different turn; the actual state of affairs gave the problem
a new aspect. "We could not exist," said Lenin, "without
the armed defence of the Socialist Republic." Winston
Churchill gave us an object lesson by organizing the at-
tack against the Soviet Union. Churchill once told Stalin
jokingly: You should have awarded me an Order because
I was the first to help train your young Soviet army in the
art of war by organizing intervention against the Soviet
Union! Of course, I am not quoting Churchill verbatim,
but that is the gist of what he said.

McDonald: I regret having to use an interpreter but my
knowledge of Russian is insufficient.

Khrushchov: I know Ukrainian pretty well, but I must
admit I also want people to slow down when they speak
too fast. One naturally finds it easier to speak one's native
tongue.

Generally speaking, Mr. Churchill has a pungent sense
of humour. He once told our Ambassador during a meeting
at Chequers: There was a time when I received the white-
guard Savinkov and had a talk with him in this very

room. We helped him in the struggle against the Soviet
state. Now you and I are talking here. . . .

Indeed, Britain, and Mr. Churchill personally, were large-
ly responsible for forcing our country to organize its own
strong army and defend the Soviet state against its ene-
mies. But I want to stress that the existence of a stand-
ing army did not spring from our convictions but was the
result of a definite situation. We are internationalists and
believe in the friendly co-operation of all peoples. Our aim
is peace and not war.

You know that Hitler and the Nazis preached their na-
tionalistic and chauvinistic philosophy, which was really
no philosophy at all, but the ravings of a madman. They
preached the concept that the "Aryans," that is to say,
the German nation, were superior to all other nations, the
idea of the enslavement of all peoples by the Germans. We
Marxists say that all men and women, all peoples, regard-
less of their colour, creed, nationality and language,
have equal rights to exist and should organize their lives
after their own fashion. Therefore, all peoples should co-
operate and live in peace with each other on the basis of
the principles of peaceful co-existence.

i If we pay great attention to our army it is only because
we are forced to. Since capitalist countries cannot think
of existing without armies we must also have an army,
and if we must have it, it must be an army capable of op-
posing any force threatening us. )

I am elaborating on this issue because in my opinion
it explains the essence of our attitude to all armed forces
in all countries. We are accused of trying to maintain
large armed forces and of wanting to use them to impose
our will on others; we are accused of wanting to impose
our ideology on other peoples by force. Mr. Dulles excels
in this respect. But it is nonsense. I think that Mr. Dulles
himself does not believe what he says and if he persists
in saying it, it is only for propaganda purposes, hoping
to stir up hatred for the Soviet Union.

It is sometimes pointed out that in my speeches I ex-
press the conviction that our cause, that is to say, the
cause of communism, will triumph all over the world. And
on these grounds our opponents declare that the Soviet
Union wants to have large armed forces to achieve its aim
by force, that is to say, to dominate the world. That is
also nonsense.

When we speak of the triumph of communism all over
the world, we have in mind, first and foremost, the inevi-
table victory of communist ideas and the triumph of the
Marxist-Leninist philosophy, the development of countries
in accordance with objective laws that are independent
of our will, laws which Marx and Lenin discovered. No
armed forces — either conventional, or, still less so, atomic
armaments — are necessary for the triumph of progressive
ideas expressing the urgent demands of social develop-
ment. If a theory is correct and reflects the laws of so-
cial development, it inevitably wins the minds of millions
upon millions of people and becomes a mighty force in the
struggle for the new and progressive. Socialist society
offers better material and spiritual opportunities for the
development of all men, and every man wishes only for
the best. It is clear then that the ideas of socialism at-
tract the working people.

We do not have to teach the British, for example, to
effect a revolution and establish the socialist system in
their country. They will do it themselves when they come
to realize that the system which we have here, in the So-
viet Union and in other socialist countries, presents
greater advantages to the peoples than the capitalist
system, that the socialist system offers unlimited possibi-
lities and people are better able to show their worth.

Such is our point of view. Of course, the establishment
of the socialist system does not proceed simultaneously,
the various countries have their own peculiarities and
there are different stages that depend on the level of de-
velopment of this or that state. Besides, not only material

but other factors are of great importance. We believe this
to be the internal affair of every nation; the peoples them-
selves will decide the problems of social development. If
the peoples decide to take the socialist road, let them do
so and we shall only welcome it and sympathize with
their wish, but if they have no such wish and prefer to
retain the old forms of social life on a capitalist basis, we
shall not make this an issue for war, nor can it be a source
of conflict between the peoples.

We willingly maintain and shall continue to maintain
friendly relations and business contacts beneficial to our
people and to countries with a social system different
from that of the Soviet Union. This is common knowledge
and needs no proof. Our foreign policy, however, is at
times crudely distorted. This is not due to misunderstand-
ing but because there is a deliberate desire to misrepre-
sent it. But truth is inescapable, truth is truth. Good and
vigorous seed, even if it falls on bad soil and finds it hard
to break through, will nevertheless break a way for itself
and sprout. Not an army but peace is required to advance
communist ideas, disseminate them and establish them
in the minds of men.

Yes, we are convinced that our ideas will triumph. But
victory for these ideas will not be won by war but by
a higher standard of living under socialism and a higher
level of culture, science and art, of everything required
for the life and not for the death of man. Hydrogen bombs
and rockets are powerless against this; neither Atlantic
nor Baghdad pacts can hinder dissemination of the ideas
of scientific communism, because the logic of life is in-
culcating them in the minds and hearts of men. When
everyone sees that people in socialist countries live well,
enjoy equal rights, have good housing — and we have now
set ourselves the tas1' of solving the housing problem
within the next 10-12 years— that they are well fed and
have the shortest working day because they are the
owners of their plants and factories and no one exploits

them; when people see that science develops faster and
more successfully in these countries, that everyone who
wishes can obtain higher education and finds application
for his abilities in any sphere of mental or physical la-
bour, that people enjoy every material benefit; when they
see that as a result of the higher productivity of labour
and the shorter working day man will have increasingly
more free time to develop his talents and abilities and to
take up the arts according to his inclination, then only
an idiot, pardon the word, will oppose this.

This is the basis of our confidence and conviction in the
inevitable triumph of communism. All people will inevi-
tably come to this, but it is hard to say when. It is a long
path and one must not advance towards communism by
sowing death. On the contrary, communism is the most
humane and the most philanthropic ideology. If the tri-
umph of communism were to be gained by aggressive
wars and the extermination of people, in that case I per-
sonally would oppose communism. We are intent on creat-
ing conditions of prosperity for the people, for the flourish-
ing of material and spiritual culture, and we strive to
preclude the possibility of wars between states and con-
flicts among people.

Soviet and British people live in different conditions;
but why should we be hostile to the British or the Ger-
mans, or to the Negroes? Every nation and people create
material and spiritual values and have specific features
of development. The British are strong in their own sphere
and manufacture goods that are needed by other coun-
tries, including ours; we also can and do produce goods in
the manufacture of which we are superior to the British.
Both they and we need these goods and thus there is ab-
solutely no cause for hostility on those grounds.

When all the peoples, or most of them, reach commu-
nism there will be some kind of distribution of labour and
duties among the peoples. This will not be competition
but friendly co-operation and a rational distribution of

forces, so as to produce, with the minimum expenditure,
more goods to satisfy the vital needs of society and man.
That is our ideal and purpose. Is war between nations nec-
essary to achieve this aim?

But since the ruling circles of the Western Powers,
blinded by hatred for our country and the other socialist
countries and for our communist ideas, wish to destroy
us, we are compelled to maintain armed forces to protect the
gains of the peoples of our country. And if anyone attacks
us it will be no easy military jaunt. If the attack against
our country did not end in success for Mr. Churchill in
1918 and if it ended in disaster for Hitler and his regime,
now that the Soviet Union is not alone and the mighty
socialist camo, embracing almost 1,000 million people, is
growing stronger, hopes' of destroying the socialist count-
ries by force are pure delirium. This is out of the question.

That is why we maintain powerful armed forces— they
serve to cool the ardour of the imperialist madmen.

Some bourgeois politicians plan to impose a still more
acute cold war on the Soviet Union, thereby make it spend
more on armaments, and in this way weaken its economic
potential and impede its development along peaceful lines.
Despite the cold war policy, however, our country's
rate of economic development greatly exceeds that of cap-
italist countries and will continue to exceed it. This is
convincingly shown by the facts. The time is not far off
when we shall overtake the most advanced capitalist states
and outstrip them in per capita output. Everything
now points to this, and when it has been achieved the in-
disputable superiority of the socialist system will be even
more obvious to everyone.

Consequently, proceeding from the actual state of
affairs and forecasts for the future, the Soviet Union is
not interested in the arms race and the continuation of
the cold war policy. We are for ending the cold war pol-
icy, for the establishment of the most sincere and friend-

ly relations with all countries, for complete disarmament
and the abolition of armed forces. But this, apparently, is
something our partners are not yet prepared to do.

Figuratively speaking, policy-making reminds one of
natural phenomena. It is 20 degrees below zero in Moscow
today, for instance, but in some places in our country the
temperature is even 50 or 60 degrees below zero. With the
approach of spring, of course, the temperature rises grad-
ually, the sun becomes hotter, little by little the snow
melts and the spring floods begin, and this does not usually
result in any calamities. But just imagine what would hap-
pen were the mercury to jump suddenly from 60 below zero
to 25 above. There would be something like the "Deluge"
and even good swimmers would be in danger of drowning.

In politics one must also sometimes abide by the rule
of gradual transition and settle questions in several stages.
Pressing problems of lesser complexity can be solved
first, and later, when the "thaw" has set in, when condi-
tions of greater confidence between states have been
established, you can go on to the next stage, gradu-
ally introducing complete disarmament and establishing
friendly relations between our countries. This is what our
proposals amount to.

We stand for the complete and radical solution of dis-
armament problems, but we are aware that our partners
are obviously not yet ready for this. Although we favour
the establishment of friendly relations, we realize that it
is impossible to rely on a mere word of honour. We do not
trust our Western partners in everything, just as they do
not have complete trust in us. Let us wait and see, let us
pay each other more frequent visits, develop trade and
thus prove that we are not ""cannibals," that we partake
of the same food as our partners.

I am replying so exhaustively to this first question be-
cause I regard ii as a point of departure for others.

McDonald: I am very grateful for your exceptionally
clear and exhaustive introduction.

Khrushchov: Please don't think I want to make a Com-
munist of you, although I should regard it as a good deed
if I were to succeed. I want you, who represent a different
conception, a different philosophy, to understand us cor-
rectly and not to distort our views and our positions. That
outstanding American journalist, John Reed, paved the
way in 1917 to the objective understanding and descrip-
tion of our life in the West, and his book Ten Days that
Shook the World was highly appreciated by Lenin and has
now become very popular. This book will live on in the
centuries.

It is a good thing when bourgeois journalists, engi-
neers, writers and intellectuals of other circles accept
communist views. But it is also very useful when honest-
minded people from among the bourgeoisie — and there
are a lot of them— correctly understand matters and ob-
jectively explain our policy. That is important and valu-
able for the establishment of proper understanding be-
tween countries with different social systems.

McDonald: Permit me to go over to the second question.
The Soviet Government's statement says that suspension
of nuclear tests does not involve any intricate control
measures. However, Western statesmen insist that nu-
clear explosions can now be effected in such a way that
their detection is impossible, and that strict control is
therefore indispensable. Do you believe, Mr. Khrushchov,
that nuclear bombs or other explosive mechanisms can be
fired without this being noticed from a distance?

Khrushchov: I think it impossible because explosions
will always be detected. And not only because explosions
cause an earth tremor but also because an atom or hyd-
rogen bomb explosion creates a very characteristic fall-out
that shifts in the atmosphere as the earth rotates and
leaves traces polluting the air. This makes it possible
with the aid of special instruments, to find out what your
neighbour is doing. When the first hydrogen bomb was
exploded in the Soviet Union, the Americans correctly

determined that it was not an atom but a hydrogen bomb.
The scientists are well aware of this.

If the other countries believe that it is necessary to es-
tablish a control system when agreement is reached on
ending nuclear tests, we are prepared to agree to this.
But it is necessary to site the control posts wisely,
both on our territory and in other countries, so as
to deprive those who are against the elimination of
the cold war of their argument that we oppose control be-
cause we want to continue clandestine nuclear weapons
tests.

The Americans speak a great deal about the "clean"
bomb. Frankly speaking, these statements do not promote
the cause of disarmament and the ending of the cold war,
but have the purpose of continuing the "positions of
strength" policy. Honest-minded scientists of America,
Britain and other countries have refuted the possibility of
developing a "clean" hydrogen bomb. Scientists say that
there can be no "clean" bomb since radioactive combus-
tion products remain and these products of the disinte-
gration of radioactive substances have a deadly effect on
the human organism. Some time ago the Labour M.P.s in
the House of Commons cleverly cornered the acting Prime
Minister, Mr. Butler (whom we met during our British
tour and with whom we were sure a reasonable un-
derstanding could be reached through negotiations). Mr.
Butler said that if a plane accidentally releases a hydro-
gen bomb it will not explode since it is not charged. Then
Mr. Bevan asked Mr. Butler whether it was possible to
charge the hydrogen bomb in the air. Of course, Mr. But-
ler could not give an affirmative reply to this question for,
indeed, how can an airman charge the hydrogen bomb in
the air if he has no access to the bomb racks? A hydro-
gen bomb can be taken up only ready for action. Why fly
with it at all if you have to land for charging? It is a
dreadful thing to fly with "cocked" hydrogen bombs over
peaceful cities! And yet, some influential quarters, even

in your country, do not wish to solve the disarmament
problem and are misleading public opinion.

I think that a policy associated with the flights of bomb-
ers laden with hydrogen bombs over Britain is, bluntly
speaking, a stupid policy which it would be difficult even
for such wise people as Mr. Butler to defend.

McDonald: I must say that in its articles our paper has
opposed the flights of American bombers over our coun-
try.

Khrushchov: Such flights are dreadful. And arguments
about the "clean" hydrogen bomb are inventions of the
cold war proponents.

McDonald: With your permission I shall take up the
third question. Would the Soviet Government be inclined
to agree to a postponement of a summit conference to a
later date than the one it proposed, "within the next two
or three months," if this would make the conference more
probable?

Khrushchov: We said "within the next two or three
months" tentatively. If it is worth while, the date could
be postponed. In this connection I recall the following
incident: When a young man I worked as a fitter. At that
time employers paid wages very irregularly — sometimes
once in two or three months. I remember a notice posted
up at one of the mines: "Pay at the end of the month" —
without specifying in which year and which month.

And so we are anxious that a summit conference, too,
should not be fixed for "the end of the month" without
specifying either the month or the year.

McDonald: The fourth question. Would you still object,
Mr. Khrushchov, to a Foreign Ministers' conference, even
if such a conference were to confine itself to preparatory
work for a summit meeting? Is it not a fact that some
preparatory work is certainly necessary?

Khrushchov: Personally I have not denied and do not
deny now the need for good preparation of a summit meet-
ing. It would seem logical that the purpose of Foreign

Ministers is to deal with international problems. But if
you have a baby you naturally want a good nurse, so that
the baby does not injure its eyes or hands or does not de-
velop bad habits. You choose a nurse with whom your
baby will be safe. But if you were recommended a nurse
who cannot guarantee the safety of your child, would you
entrust its fate to her? Or, if you love flowers and employ
a gardener to grow them, you would naturally try to get
a gardener who is not only good at the job but also loves
flowers and would lovingly tend and care for them.

Unfortunately, among Foreign Ministers there are some
"gardeners" and "nurses'" who make you fear for the fate
of the flowers, for the fate of the child. In other words,
we fear lest a summit meeting should die before it is born.
Then it would not be the birth of a baby but a miscar-
riage. And that is what we fear. It is necessary to find such
ways of preparing a summit meeting that would ensure
against this happening. Perhaps a meeting should be pre-
pared through diplomatic channels?

If the Foreign Ministers are to be regarded as mid-
wives who should help bring the child into the world— and,
as we understand it, such a child is the strengthening of
peace, the elimination of international tension and cold
war, greater mutual understanding and confidence among
states— we have reasons to fear that among these mid-
wives there are those who are not interested in the birth of
a child that all mankind is awaiting.

McDonald: I should like to make one point finally clear.
When you said before that in general you did not object to
a Foreign Ministers' conference, did you mean that you
did not object to such a conference despite the existence
of bad "gardeners" and bad "nurses"?

Khrushchov: You do not understand me rightly. That is
precisely what we want to avoid, we want to preclude the
influence of those who oppose the establishment of a new
spirit in the relations between countries. We want to pro-
vide conditions for the organization of a meeting and for

the solution of problems which are urgent today. The so-
lution of these problems could be a good beginning for
the complete elimination of the cold war in the future. I
am not sure that if the preparation of a summit meeting
is entrusted to Foreign Ministers the solution of this ques-
tion would not be prevented. So what should we do? Con-
front public opinion with such an outcome? That would
be too hard on all the peoples, because they are awaiting
good results and not the confirmation of evil.

McDonald: I raised this question, because it seemed
that I had not understood you rightly. But even after a
summit meeting, the Foreign Ministers evidently will have
to get together anyhow, to carry out directives drawn up
by the Heads of Government. Is it not possible that the re-
sults might be sabotaged even after the conference?

Khrushchov: Yes, it is possible in general. Even after
a summit meeting the decisions reached could be sabo-
taged. But in physics there is the law of inertia. When, say,
a ball is at rest one must apply a certain force to over-
come the state of inertia and start the ball rolling. And
once the ball is rolling, it is necessary to apply a certain
force to stop it. We want a summit meeting to be that force
which would move international relations out of their
present state, because this would offer greater hope for
the achievement of positive decisions. After a summit
meeting the Ministers could continue their work, but then
it would be more difficult for them to raise obstacles, they
would have to reckon with public opinion.

If the peoples decide that the cold war must be elim-
inated, no power on earth will be able to prevent that
and a solution to this problem will certainly be found.
Those who object to the elimination of the cold war are
well aware of this and that is why they fear a meeting of
Heads of Government, they fear the achievement of posi-
tive results at a summit meeting. It is a fact that public
opinion would grasp at the initial positive results and
would exert still stronger pressure in order to ensure a

continuous improvement in international relations. The
enemies of peace, in contradiction to the facts, continual-
ly present the Soviet Union as some kind of evil spirit,
allege that the Soviet Union does not keep its word, that
it cannot be trusted, etc. But the peoples are sick of such
talk, they are beginning to ignore it. Obviously a summit
meeting will definitely take place.

McDonald: In this connection, Mr. Khrushchov, I should
like to ask you a question about the Rapacki plan. As is
known, the Soviet Government is in favour of establishing
an "atom-free zone" in Europe, which would include both
parts of Germany as well as Poland and Czechoslovakia.
Do you mean that rockets for short-range fighting, tacti-
cal rockets, as well as rockets with a longer range, the
so-called intermediate-range rockets, would also be banned
in this zone? If so, could this plan be combined with
an agreement to reduce conventional armed forces in this
zone, in order to achieve a more equal distribution of
armed forces in both parts of Germany, or should this plan
be regarded quite separately, having in view tactical atom-
ic weapons — missiles and rockets?

Khrushchov: We do not preclude that. The idea is to solve
not a narrow but a broader range of problems. We
stand for full disarmament, and the further we advance in
that direction at the first stage, the easier it would be
to attain the final objectives. So this is no problem to us.
We are ready to agree to the complete banning of atomic
and hydrogen weapons, to complete disarmament, to a
complete withdrawal of troops and the closing down of
foreign bases on the territories of other states. We know
that our partners are not prepared for such a solution and
for this reason we have proposed that these problems be
solved gradually, by stages. As regards the stage our
partners are ready to go to, you must ask them; we do
not know As for us, we are prepared to discuss and solve
disarmament problems in their broadest aspect.

To make my point more clear I would say the following:

the doctors at first treat a man emaciated by a grave ill-
ness gradually and prescribe food for him in small doses.
If more were given the patient, it might kill him. And so
we want to begin disarmament not with a full dose, al-
though we are prepared even for a full dose. I have said
already that the Western Powers have shown great dis-
trust of us and we, too, do not trust them in everything.
And so, in order not to wreck something of great and vital
importance to mankind — disarmament — we suggest be-
ginning not with a cardinal but with a gradual solution
of disarmament problems, beginning with what offers
hope, inspires confidence. Thus, step by step, gradually, it
would be possible to reach the main goal, that is, the full
solution of the disarmament problem.

McDonald: I fully agree that this is really the only way
to solve the problem.

Now I should like to ask a question about the Middle
East. Does Mr. Khrushchov think that a one- or two-year
moratorium on arms deliveries to this area from all sources
would be useful as a preliminary step to the relaxa-
tion of tension? We made this point in our paper.

Khrushchov: That is a reasonable way. When we were in
London, in a personal conversation with Mr. Lloyd, and
also at a press conference, we spoke of the expediency of
discontinuing arms deliveries to the Middle East by both
sides. We had that conversation with Mr. Lloyd in a car
on the way to Chequers. But evidently our conversations
failed to make a proper impression on British statesmen
and the British Government did not change its opinion.
The outcome, as you know, was the unpleasant incident
if you may call it such, which occurred in Suez and which
had tragic consequences for the people.

Evidently there must not only be a moratorium on arms
deliveries to the Middle East but also an agreement on
non-intervention in the affairs of Arab states so that their
sovereignty and independence be recognized. All this must
be done in such a way as not to make the Arab countries

think that we are proclaiming a moratorium in order to
leave them unarmed and permit the aggressive forces of
other states to interfere in the internal affairs of Arab
states or attack them with impunity and deprive them of
their independence. That would be a bad and harmful act.
This should be foreseen and precluded.

McDonald: Do you mean a moratorium conditional upon
an agreement on non-aggression and the renunciation of
hostile actions of any kind?

Khrushchov: Exactly. If we simply proclaim a moratori-
um the Arabs might think that the Soviet Union has
changed its policy and is renouncing the principles we
have proclaimed and are unwaveringly carrying out. Our
principles stem from the United Nations Charter: we stand
for the sovereignty and independence of the Arab states,
for non-interference of other states in the internal affairs
of these countries, and so forth.

McDonald: Does Mr. Khrushchov think that the Soviet
Union could at present contribute to the establishment of
peace between the Arab states and Israel, or that the mo-
ment is not propitious?

Khrushchov: We think that if the Great Powers would
not interfere, the Arab countries and Israel themselves
would more quickly achieve mutual understanding and
reach agreement on their relations. This would help bring
peace to this area and help find ways to eliminate the ten-
sion now existing there. If any outside interference were
attempted now, it would hardly be useful because relations
there are exceptionally strained. Obviously, Israeli states-
men themselves should give more thought to the concrete
conditions existing there, should take into account the in-
terests of the Arab world, interests which Israel not only
frequently does not consider but even openly ignores,
adopting an arrogant attitude towards the Arab countries.

McDonald: When the Soviet Government in its state-
ment of January 8 speaks about the need for eliminating
all kinds of interference in the internal affairs of the Mid-

100

die Eastern countries, does it regard the functioning of oil
companies as interference?

Khrushchov: We believe that if it is done on a mutual-
ly profitable commercial basis, it is, naturally, a business
deal. Therefore, far from being a hindrance, it is inevi-
table. We said so in London during our talks with Sir An-
thony Eden, Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Butler and other British states-
men. When Sir Anthony Eden spoke about the impor-
tance of oil for Britain, our attitude to the question was
one of understanding. And today we also realize full well
that the British economy cannot do without oil. This would
retard the development of British economy, affect Britain's
vital interests and lower the living standard of the British
people. This is not what we want. We have never thought
of preventing Britain from obtaining raw materials, in-
cluding oil, from the countries of the Middle East or from
other countries. And we ourselves are ready to trade with
you on a broader basis. The only question is — on what
basis?

McDonald: Now a question concerning the internal
development of the Soviet Union. Would Mr. Khrushchov
be so kind as to explain what seems to us to be the in-
creased role which is assigned here to the Central Com-
mittee of the Party. Does the appointment of a greater
number of secretaries of the Party indicate the increasing
rote of the Central Committee of the Communist Party?

Khrushchov: You understand this question correctly. Yes,
the changes you have mentioned indicate the constantly
growing role of the Communist Party in the life of our
country and, obviously, this role will continue to grow-
In the Soviet Union a certain change is taking place in
the ways and means of administrative ties that formerly
existed between districts, regions and republics. At the
same time the ideological ties between regions and repub-
lics are being extended and strengthened making for a
further consolidation of the unity of the Soviet people. A
decisive role in this belongs to the Communist Party and

101

the role of the Party is increasing. The peoples of our
country form a single closely-knit family, welded together
by unity of political views, unity of political aims, by com-
mon vital interests. Each Soviet Republic, proceeding
from the common tasks confronting the Soviet Union,
solves its own problems with due consideration paid to its
own specific features. In our. opinion, the solution of eco-
nomic and administrative problems is the internal affair
of each republic, each people.

The mutual relations between the peoples of our country
are in a state of continuous development. Changes are
also occurring in the various functions of the state. The
process of change in these functions results from our con-
cepts, from the theoretical postulates of Marxism-Lenin-
ism on the state. When the conditions for the transition
to communist society are created in our country, many or-
gans of state administration will gradually wither away.
Thus the army, the court, the Prosecutor's office and other
organs will wither away.

The court is obviously destined to outlive the army and
other bodies of administrative control. The court will
continue to exist, in a different form, of course, because
there will still be conflicts of different kinds between peo-
ple and there must be some kind of arbiter to settle these
conflicts.

I do not intend to forecast changes in our society over
a lengthy period, but already today social life is develop-
ing precisely along the lines that emerge from the theo-
retical principles of Marxism-Leninism. And so, under
these conditions, in order to make the most rational use
of available material and other resources, the Party's role
is increasing. The Party has a stronger foundation than
the government bodies. It grew up and exists not as a
result of some obligations of a legislative kind. Its devel-
opment is conditioned by the political views of people,
that is, from propositions of a moral factor. And humani-
ty will always need moral factors.

102

McDonald: Finally, my Last question. Is Mr. Khrus'hchov
satisfied with the progress of the reorganization of man-
agement in industry and building? Has this stimulated in
practice greater initiative on the part of Party members on
the spot?

Khrushchov: I am more than satisfied. I am delighted.
It has far surpassed our boldest hopes and expectations.

McDonald: I have had many talks in Moscow and Ir-
kutsk with representatives of economic councils. These
talks make it clear that they are very much satisfied. Be-
sides, I have seen for myself that things are going well.

Khrushchov: As a result of the reorganization of man-
agement in industry and building, our forces have grown
considerably, and industry and agriculture are now oper-
ating much better than before. Now that we are reorgan-
izing the machine and tractor stations, we shall ensure
better incentives for the development of our economy, par-
ticularly agriculture.

All this is easily explained. Previously work of indus-
trial undertakings and agriculture in this country was in-
fluenced chiefly by administrative action. The forces of the
Party, trade unions and the Young Communist League did
not operate with all the energy of which they are capable.
Now, with decentralization of industrial management the
guidance of industry and construction has been trans-
ferred to the localities, nearer to the plants and the build-
ing sites. That is why the impact of Party, trade-union and
Y.C.L. organizations on the work of enterprises has grown
immeasurably. These organizations have become more ac-
tive and are showing greater initiative and their responsi-
bility for the fulfilment of the plans has increased. Besides,
the plans themselves are being drawn up with the obliga-
tory participation of the enterprises concerned. This is a
subject on which much can be said. But to make it short
I must stress that we have had exceptionally good results
from the measures taken to reorganize management in in-
dustry and building. It is naturally very difficult to man-

age the industry of the whole country from one centre,
from a Ministry in Moscow. A Minister had to be greater
than God because he had to know everything and see ev-
erything that was being done, for example, in Sakhalin,
Kamchatka, Baku or Armenia. That is impossible. Now
we have transferred the solution of these problems of
operating plants to the localities, and this is all to the
good.

McDonald: The improvements in your agriculture are
really tremendous.

Khrushchov: They will be even greater. We overcame
stagnation in agriculture by taking certain steps in Sep-
tember 1953. Then we amended certain laws and created
better conditions for agricultural development, and it be-
gan to develop rapidly and grow.

The same goes for international affairs. If we succeed
in overcoming the stalemate in the current relations be-
tween our states, and primarily between the Soviet Union,
the United States, Britain, France and other countries, if
we begin to develop mutually advantageous trade, im-
prove cultural, sports and other ties between the countries,
it will have a favourable effect on the improvement of rela-
tions between countries as well as on the internal situa-
tion in those countries. A reduction in the armed forces
and in expenditures on armaments will create greater pos-
sibilities for raising living standards. If we succeed in
moving the relations between our countries out of the
deadlock in which they now stand, and succeed in turn-
ing them towards eliminating the cold war, this alone will
be a great thing. Naturally, there will at first be no agree-
ment on complete disarmament. But I foresee that the
tendency towards unilateral disarmament could be
strengthened because when people realize that the danger
of war has passed, states possessing large armed forces
will strive to reduce them, to release manpower and vast
material resources to develop their economy, in order to
prove the advantages of this or that state system in peaceful

104

competition, in competition to raise living standards in
their countries. This is a very good road — without blood,
without fear for the people. This is what every man and
mankind as a whole live for.

McDonald: I would like to thank you sincerely, Mr.
Khrushchov, for your detailed and comprehensive replies
to my questions. I fear that I have taken up an enormous
amount of your time. I thank you once again for having
been given the opportunity to talk with you, and assure
you that everything you have said will be highly useful
for the development of understanding between our coun-
tries.

Khrushchov: I am glad that you are satisfied with the
interview- Commercially speaking, I hope that the time
spent on the interview will yield high interest.

In conclusion I should like to stress once again that we
wish to be correctly understood — we firmly stand for peace
and peaceful co-existence.

McDonald: I hope to have the honour, Mr. Khrushchov,
of seeing you once again in London or at a summit confer-
ence in Geneva. I hope that such a conference will be
held.

Khrushchov: I also hope that such a conference will cer-
tainly be held.

Pravda, February 16, 1958

REPLIES

TO QUESTIONS PUT BY MANUEL MEJIDO,

CORRESPONDENT OF MEXICAN NEWSPAPER

EXCELSIOR

February 21, 1958

Manuel Mejido, correspondent of the Mexican newspa-
per Excelsior, submitted a series of questions to N. S.
Khrushchov, First Secretary of the Central Committee of
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. On February 21,
N. Khrushchov received Mr. Mejido and replied to his ques-
tions.

The questions and answers are printed below.

Question: How do you envisage the conclusion of eco-
nomic agreements between the Soviet Union and the Latin
American countries— goods exchange, loans or only direct
purchases? What other forms of economic exchange might
there be with these countries? If there is trade with some of
them, what is its scale, can it be increased, and how?

Answer: The trade policy of the Soviet Union derives
from the necessity for the all-round development of inter-
national economic contacts since these are important not
only from the standpoint of normal trade between coun-
tries, but above all because they facilitate normal political
relations and promote confidence between states.

We are for any of the forms of economic exchange prac-
tised in international trade, provided the principle of equal-
ity and mutual benefit is observed and all forms of restric-
tion and discrimination rejected. So, given good will and
the desire on both sides, it should be easy to find forms of
economic relations acceptable alike to the Soviet Union and
the Latin American countries. The point is not the form,

106

but the essence; the main thing is the desire to conduct
trade on conditions of equality and mutual benefit.

At the moment we are trading with a number of Latin
American countries. And although there has been some ex-
pansion since the war, the level is still not satisfactory.
Many opportunities for expansion remain unused. In par-
ticular, the Soviet Union could supply these countries
with a wide range of machines and plant needed for their
industrialization, as well as raw materials, in exchange
for the traditional Latin American exports.

Our greatest trade in Latin America at present is with
Argentina and Uruguay. The Soviet Union has concluded
pertinent trade and payment agreements with these coun-
tries. I can tell you, for example, that trade between the
U.S.S.R. and Argentina during the past four years was in
the vicinity of $180 million. We could have had an equal
volume of trade with other Latin American countries given
favourable conditions — normal diplomatic and trade rela-
tions.

Question: Has the Soviet Union any plan to effect a
closer rapprochement with the Latin American nations in
the trade, cultural and political spheres, and also in the
spheres of economy and tourist travel?

Answer: The Soviet Union on the basis of its policy of
peace and the principle of peaceful co-existence, is willing
to establish normal diplomatic, trade, cultural and other
relations with those countries with which, for one reason
or another, such relations have not yet been established.

Our people are keenly interested in the rich and an-
cient culture of the Latin American nations. We are ready
to enter into the broadest cultural contacts with them,
ready to extend our sports contacts, tourist travel, etc.

Question: Will not the economic competition which, as I
understand it, peaceful co-existence presupposes, endan-
ger the successful realization of this international peaceful
co-existence?

Answer: When we speak of peaceful co-existence we

107

have in mind co-existence between the socialist and capi-
talist countries. And this not only admits but also presup-
poses the solution of differences and contradictions be-
tween them by means of peaceful competition and, first and
foremost, economic competition, or if you like, contest. What
does economic competition imply? We understand it as com-
petition in the sphere of peaceful production, a contest be-
tween the two systems — socialism and capitalism — in mak-
ing life better for the people, in raising living standards.

What can hinder peaceful co-existence? Here, I think,
there can be no two opinions: war and the preparation
of war. The cold war, arms drive, propaganda of war, en-
mity and hatred between nations, trade discrimination and
undermining of world commerce — all add to the danger of
another devastating war and, consequently, endanger peace-
ful co-existence between the nations. You, of course, realize
that should the imperialists resort to war, then, in view
of the nature of modern armaments, the consequences for
the people would be calamitous. As matters stand at
present there is no place in the world where the popula-
tion can be sure they will be immune from military ac-
tion, not only the belligerent armies will suffer, but peace-
ful cities with a peaceful population will suffer as well.

We in all sincerity say to the capitalist countries, let us
compete not in making the largest number of H-bombs
and missiles, for that is a competition which bodes no good
to the peoples, but in building more houses, schools and
hospitals, produce more grain, milk, meat, clothes and
other consumer goods. That is the kind of competition the
people want. Instead of the slogan "Let us arm!" we pro-
claim "Let us trade!"

Although the Soviet Union has made significant prog-
ress in all spheres, and in raising the standard of living
of the people as well, it has set itself the goal of producing
more consumer goods than any capitalist country. And
we are confident that under these conditions we shall
achieve a still higher standard of living. How can this

108

endanger peaceful co-existence of nations? The imperial-
ists fear such a competition, while we are eager that each
system— socialist and capitalist— should demonstrate its
superiority not on the war front, but on the front of peace-
ful labour.

Far from endangering peaceful co-existence, economic
competition would, on the contrary, strengthen it, safe-
guard the nations against the danger of another war and
contribute to the improvement of their living conditions
in a state of peace.

Question: What is the attitude of the Soviet Government
to the liberation of the countries traditionally colonial?

Answer: We, Soviet people, whole-heartedly sympathize
with the yearning of the colonial peoples to throw off the
shackles of slavery and the yoke of the imperialist Powers.

The Soviet Union is a multi-national country in which
the relations between the peoples are based on equality
and friendship; hence, Soviet people simply loathe nation-
al oppression. We know the price of freedom: our peo-
ples, particularly in Transcaucasia and Central Asia, were
once forced to wage a long and bitter struggle before they
won national liberation and established their own national
states as equal republics in the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics. It is natural, therefore, that the national-lib-
eration struggle of the colonial nations should evoke the
warm sympathy of our peoples.

Today, we see how more than 1,500 million people in
Africa and Asia have taken the road of independent devel-
opment. In some places the colonial Powers, forced under
pressure of the national-liberation movement to recognize
the formal independence of one or another country, still
retain a strong economic grip on them. But this will not
be the case for long. Having attained political independ-
' ence, these young countries are striving to build up their
own economy, strengthening their economic independence
of the foreign monopolies. True, this process is taking
place not without struggle and not without difficulties,

109

but ultimately these countries will triumph over the dif-
ficulties.

The Soviet Union deeply sympathizes with all the na-
tions striving to win and uphold their right to independ-
ence. And these nations can rest assured that the So-
viet Union, without any meddling in their internal affairs,
without stipulating any conditions, will help them to
strengthen the independence for which they fought so
hard. In the economic sphere, for example, they no longer
need bow before their former enslavers. They can now get
industrial plant, machinery and technical documents on
mutually beneficial conditions from the socialist countries.
Our country has already extended disinterested help to the
Afro-Asian nations in developing their economies and cul-
ture, and, furthermore, this help is given without any polit-
ical or military strings attached. I think that the people
of Mexico fully appreciate the difference between this kind
of help and the "aid" of the imperialist states which binds
the economy of the small countries hand and foot and
whic'h leads to the loss of that which is dearest to the na-
tions—their freedom and independence.

And the other nations now battling valiantly against
colonial oppression can always rely on our moral and po-
litical support, in particular on support within the frame-
work of the United Nations.

Question: Would you care to comment on any other
matter?

Answer: I avail myself of this opportunity to convey
to the people of Mexico through the medium of your paper
my respects and sincere friendship and wish them suc-
cess and prosperity. The Soviet people have a sympathetic
attitude to the courageous people of Mexico and are
deeply interested in their unique and ancient culture. We
hold the view that the relations between the Soviet Union
and Mexico should continue to be further improved and
strengthened for the benefit of our peoples and peace.

International Affairs, No. 4, 1958

LETTER TO BERTRAND RUSSELL
March 5, 1958

The British philosopher, Bertrand Russell, addressed
an Open Letter to N. S. Khrushchov and President Eisen-
hower, which was published in the London New States-
man of November 23, 1957. Khrushchov's reply was pub-
lished in the New Statesman of December 21, 1957.

Both Russell's Open Letter and Khrushchov's reply
were published in No. 1 of International Affairs for 1958.

The U.S. Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, wrote
a reply to Bertrand Russell on behalf of the U.S. Presi-
dent which was published in the New Statesman of Feb-
ruary 8, 1958.

On March 5, 1958, Khrushchov sent a second letter to
Bertrand Russell which the New Statesman published on
March 14.

It is published below.

Mr. KINGSLEY MARTIN, THE EDITOR, NEW STATESMAN

Dear Mr. Editor,

On February 8 you published the letter by Mr. Dulles,
the U.S. Secretary of State, sent on behalf of the U.S.
President in reply to the Open Letter of Professor Ber-
trand Russell addressed to President Eisenhower and my-
self.

///

In so far as Mr. Dulles* letter contains distortions and
inaccuracies concerning Soviet foreign policy, and also
in so far as Mr. Dulles comments upon a number of points
made in my reply to Lord Russell published in your
journal in an extremely arbitrary fashion, I felt it neces-
sary to address a second Open Letter to professor Ber-
trand Russell.

Since many readers of your journal clearly read Lord
Russell's letter and my reply, and also that of Mr. Dulles,
I would ask you to be so kind as to publish my second
letter to Lord Russell.

Yours faithfully,

N. KHRUSHCHOV

March 5, 1958

N. S. KHRUSHCHOV'S LETTER TO BERTRAND RUSSELL

Dear Lord Russell,

I see that the New Statesman on February 8 published
a letter from Mr. John Foster Dulles, which he wrote on
behalf of the U.S. President in reply to your Open Let-
ter addressed to myself and Mr. Dwight D. Eisenhower,
President of the United States.

I had no intention of writing you a second letter, as
in my letter of December 7 I had already set out my views
on the important international problems you had touched
upon. However, after carefully reading Mr. Dulles' letter
in which he comments extensively and, regrettably, in a
most peculiar way, on the Soviet Union's attitude and on
my letter to you, the idea occurred to me to write you
this letter. Naturally, it will deal with Mr. Dulles' letter.

To read Mr. Dulles' letter and remain silent— would not
that be tantamount to agreeing, to some extent, with what
he writes? It is, however, impossible to agree— complete-
ly impossible— for in the heat of argument Mr. Dulles
has been so carried away that he has completely lost

112

any basis of real facts and has begun to build his argu-
ments on his emotions and deductions. But deductions
based on, emotions, even if they come from a person of
such strong convictions as Mr. Dulles, do not acquire the
weight of facts.

Emotions are always emotions. The logic of facts is
an entirely different matter. I have always been attracted
rather by the logic of facts, and not by the logic of emo-
tional deductions.

One cannot but agree with Mr. Dulles that the world
in which we live is made of sterner stuff than mere words.
So much combustible material has now been accumulated
that it needs only a single spark to cause disaster. Such
is the situation in the world that as a result of just one
absurd incident or a defect in the equipment of a single
plane carrying a hydrogen bomb, or the slightest devia-
tion from the normal in the mentality of a pilot at the
controls, war can become a fact this very day.

To Mr. Dulles, I should like to say that we are both
getting on in years. I don't know about him, but during
the Second World War it fell to my lot to see the death of
many of my comrades and the devastation of entire
towns. Believe me, it was a terrible thing. But that was
in wartime. Today, while the British people sleep peace-
fully in their beds, a horrible death constantly hovers
over their heads, borne not by enemy planes but by bom-
bers carrying U.S. atom and hydrogen bombs.

Probably Mr. Dulles regards this circumstance differ-
ently from the way I regard it, and it awakens no pro-
test from him; but I — and I am not alone — cannot speak
of this without indignation. My entire being protests
against such criminal playing with fire. And just think—
for the sake of what? They say for the sake of security
and as a defence against possible attack. What attack do
they have in mind? It turns out that what they are think-
ing of is defence against a possible Soviet attack.

To such people one can only say:

"Come to your senses, gentlemen— what makes vou
think that the Soviet Union intends to attack the Western
Powers? Why do you deceive your own people?"

I often wonder what kind of logic it is that some of
the leaders of the Western countries apply. If the Soviet
Union says that there should be an immediate ending of
nuclear weapons tests in view of the danger threatening
mankind, we are told: "That's propaganda." If the Soviet
Union suggests that a summit conference be called to
examine urgent problems — we are accused of trying to
weaken the Western world. If the Soviet Union proposes
the disbanding of all military blocs and the dismantling
of all military bases, we are accused of wanting to set
the Western allies "against one another," and so on.

In everything connected with the Soviet Union Mr. Dul-
les tries to see "communist propaganda."

Let us examine calmly and soberly some of the most
important aspects of the present international situation.

If we base ourselves on facts, we have to admit that
in the world today there are two world systems — the new,
socialist system, and the old, capitalist system. Each is
developing in accordance with its own inherent laws. And
these systems were not born today or yesterday.

Prior to October 1917, one system— the capitalist sys-
tem—held undivided sway in the world. This system had
asserted itself in the struggle against the system of feu-
dal serfdom and had replaced that system practically
everywhere on our planet. If you take a look at history
you will soon become convinced that the new system was
disliked by many at the time. History, however, did its
job.

As a result of the victory of the working class in Rus-
sia, a new state, a workers' and peasants' state, was
born — the Soviet Republic. A new, socialist system was
created over one-sixth of our planet. Even those who dis-
like this system cannot but admit that the people them-
selves have now become the complete masters of all

114

their country's wealth, with full rights to build their own"
life.

This is how the new ideology founded by Karl Marx and
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin triumphed in practice.

I foresee that Mr. Dulles will once again say: "More
propaganda." Please understand me, Lord Russell, I have
no intention whatsoever of making propaganda. I am
compelled to speak of these things (because Mr. Dulles, in
interpreting them in 'his own way, has given them a most
peculiar slant.

There was no festive peal of bells to welcome the birth
of the new, socialist world in Russia — only volleys from
the guns aimed against the victorious people. Fourteen
foreign countries launched a bloody crusade against the
Land of Soviets. Tell me, on what grounds did they in-
vade our country and attempt to drown the newly-born
Soviet socialist state in rivers of blood? They did not like
Soviet power and they planned to put a noose round the
people's neck. Is it to be wondered at that the peoples
of the Soviet land swept the interventionists from their
soil, as a good housewife sweeps the rubbish from her
home?

And then came the time for peaceful work, to furnish
our house in a way that suited our people. And we all
worked, oblivious of self, relying on no one, asking help
from nobody — doing everything ourselves. It was hard,
for we were creating a society never before known in his-
tory. Everything was done to hinder us and spanners
were thrown into the works, but Soviet men and women
went resolutely forward, regardless of everything. For a
long time the Soviet Union was the only socialist country.

And then, in 1939, the Second World War broke out.
You know how that ended. The peoples in a whole number
of countries in Europe and Asia refused to tolerate any
longer a system that had brought them war and disaster.
They threw out the unwanted governments which had
betrayed the peoples, and set up in their countries the

115

System of people's democracy; they followed the socialist
path of development.

The Communists, who had devoted their lives to the
cause of the people and who had always been in the very
midst of the people, flesh and blood of the people— those
Communists who, together with their people, had experi-
enced all the hardships and misfortunes and in every re-
spect had set an example of loyal service to their country's
interests— naturally proved worthy of the people's great
trust. The victorious people of the socialist countries
saw in practice that they were worthy of the people's con-
fidence.

What is the strength of the Communists, and where
does it come from? Their strength lies in their unbreak-
able ties with the people. It is well known that, during
the February Revolution, our Party had between 40,000
and 45,000 members in tsarist Russia. But the Party grew
rapidly. At the time of the April Conference, it already
had 80,000 members; in August, by the 6th Congress,
240,000, while on the eve of the October Revolution the
Party membership had grown to 400,000. The best sons
and daughters of the people joined the Party. What could
the Communists have done in a country with a popula-
tion of more than 100 million, had they not relied on the
people, enjoyed their support, and expressed their cher-
ished ideas and aspirations?

The Communist Party was the beacon which illumined
the path to victory for the workers and peasants. The Com-
munists helped the people, the disinherited and exploited
men and women, to remove the scales from their eyes. The
people themselves stepped into the arena of history and
proclaimed their legitimate rights.

And eventually this will happen in other countries.
This is what will happen both in the United States and in
Britain, though there are no Soviet Communists there, nor
will there be. Such is the relentless course of historical
development, which no one can halt.

116

We are confident that the ideas of communism will find
a way to reach the minds of the peoples, for Marxism-Le-
ninism corresponds to the most vital interests of the
working class — and not only of the working class. The
working class is more receptive of the ideas of commu-
nism because the very conditions of capitalism have
prepared it to receive them, but it acts in the interests
of the people as a whole, in the interests of historical
progress.

Communists enjoy citizenship rights in their country
on an equal footing with persons who do not belong to
the Party. In times of military misfortunes and hardships
they voluntarily bear the brunt of those hardships and
misfortunes, setting a personal example of heroism, stead-
fastness and self-sacrificing work.

That is what Communists are. They are united in the
Party by communist ideals and by unshakable belief in
the triumph of the communist society, in which there will
be no oppression of man by man, or of nation by nation,
and where the whole of society will consist of working
people enjoying equal rights, in which nations will form
one united and harmonious family, regardless of colour of
skin or language.

Well, is it the Communists who impose their rule on the
peoples, and not the handful of millionaires and billion-
aires who have concentrated in their own hands all the main
wealth of their countries, who have subordinated to their
service the state, the army, the law courts, the police, and
a mighty propaganda machine in the shape of countless
papers and magazines, radio and television, clubs and
entertainment establishments?

These are the facts, which Mr. Dulles has forgotten in
his letter to you, dear Lord Russell. He prefers to allege
that the Communists are imposing their will, their rule,
on the people, and to remain silent about facts which are
obvious to everyone, such as the fact that the monopolists
of a whole number of "democratic" countries not only hold

117

in the grip of their capital the mass of the people in their
own countries, but also mercilessly exploit millions upon
millions in colonial and dependent countries.

What explanation, other than a desire to mislead the
readers, can there be for the fact that Mr. Dulles deliberate-
ly confuses questions concerning the class struggle in
individual countries with questions concerning relations
between the capitalist and socialist countries? I do not
think this is the result of ignorance. No! Who knows bet-
ter than Mr. Dulles that |the class struggle in every cap-
italist country is the result of internal economic and po-
litical factors? The U.S. workers' struggle to improve their
conditions and defend their rights takes a different course
from that of the Italian workers, let us say, or the
French. The struggle of the American farmers similarly dif-
fers from that of the Spanish peasants, although both are
striving for a better life, striving to abolish the glaring
injustice whereby the fruits of their labour are appropriat-
ed by a small handful of persons possessing power and
wealth.

Mr. Dulles distorts Soviet foreign policy, the policy of
the Communist Party oi the Soviet Union. Who today
does not realize that the people of each country decide
their own social system? The peoples themselves decide
how they are to achieve the triumph of a system in which
the men and women who create all the material wealth
necessary for the development of society should have the
best material and spiritual opportunities for their life, so
that the products of their labour be fairly distribut-
ed among the workers and not appropriated by owners of
enterprises, by financial magnates— that is to say, so that
there should be no exploitation of man by man. In the capi-
talist countries, the working people are waging a strug-
gle against those who exploit and plunder them. They are
struggling for the reorganization of society.

In his attempt to mislead people who are insufficiently
informed on political questions Mr. Dulles distorts the Dec-

//«

laration of the Communist and Workers' Parties. What
does this Declaration say?

"The forms of the transition from capitalism to socialism
may vary for different countries. The working class and
its vanguard — the Marxist-Leninist Party — seek to achieve
the socialist revolution by peaceful means. This would
accord with the interests of the working class and the
entire people, with the national interests of the country. . . .

"In the event of the exploiting classes resorting to vio-
lence against the ptoole, the possibility of non-peaceful
transition to socialism should be borne in mind. ... In this
case the degree of bitterness and the forms of the class
struggle will depend not so much on the proletariat as on
the resistance put up by the reactionary circles to the will
of the overwhelming majority of the people, on these circles
using force at one or another stage of the struggle for so-
cialism.

"The possibility of one or another way to socialism de-
pends on the concrete historical conditions in each country."

That is what is said in the Declaration which Mr. Dul-
les interprets so freely and tendentiously. He depicts the
ideological class struggle in the capitalist countries as the
result of the activity of the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union. We have said, and we continue to say, that the
Communists in the Soviet Union sympathize with the
struggle of the workers in the capitalist countries for their
liberation from the yoke of monopoly capital, but we have
never imposed our ideology on anyone nor do we intend
to do so, least of all by force of arms. Mr. Dulles is fully
aware of this and yet he asserts the opposite.

In his speeches, Mr. Dulles had frequently tried, for pro-
paganda purposes, to use the Hungarian events against
the Soviet Union. Since he refers to them again in his let-
ter to you, Lord Russell, I must examine this question in
substance, at least briefly. The essence of the matter is
that in Hungary the Horthy elements, the agents of foreign

monopoly capital, tried to overthrow the people's democratic
order, to restore the hated fascist regime. The handful of
fascist conspirators and imperialist agents were followed
by a small number of misguided honest people.

In pursuing their anti-popular aims, the enemies of so-
cialist Hungary took advantage of mistakes made by the
former Hungarian leaders. The conspirators provoked a
rebellion against the legitimate Government of the Hun-
garian People's Republic, which the people had elected on
a constitutional basis. To declare that these Horthy ele-
ments were expressing the will of the people is to present
black as white.

The Hungarian Government had every right to appeal
for help, and the Soviet Government, on the basis of the
agreement existing between our two countries, gave assist-
ance to Hungary— in the interests of the Hungarian peo-
ple and of all the peoples of Europe and the whole world
—to prevent the return of the Horthy regime and to put an
end to the fascist violence that had begun in Hungary. The
Soviet Union's help to fraternal Hungary was given on
legitimate grounds, and it was justified from every point
of view. If the counter-revolution had succeeded in estab-
lishing a fascist regime in Hungary, it would have been a
tremendous disaster for the peoples of Europe— and not
of Europe alone, for it could have led to tragic events sim-
ilar to those which followed the fascist seizure of power
in Germany, Italy, Hungary, Austria and Spain, which
caused the peoples so much disaster, bloodshed and tears-
including the peoples of the United States, Britain and
France.

In the last war our countries were allies, fighting jointly
against bloody fascism. It is in the interests of the peoples,
in the interests of peace, to prevent the rise of fascism.

It is clear that the Hungarian events were dragged in
artificially by Mr. Dulles to confirm his argument that the
Soviet Union interferes in the internal affairs of other
countries.

120

In discussing the Hungarian events, it must also be
pointed out that the old class that has outlived its time
does not voluntarily give way to the new. The whole course
of history clearly demonstrates this. The feudal system
gave way to the capitalist system which replaced it only
after a fierce struggle. If we examine, for instance, the his-
tory of the rise of the United States of America as an in-
dependent state, we shall see that it was born of a fierce
struggle for freedom from colonial domination. When they
rose up in struggle for their independence, the Americans
did not ask the permission of the English. They drove the
colonialists out and in the course of this struggle created
their own state, the United States of America.

The Soviet Union also arose as the result of the strug-
gle of the peoples of former tsarist Russia against the
bankrupt capitalist system. The Soviet people swept away
all oppressors and foreign interventionists and, arms in
hand, voted for Soviet power. How could the new system
be consolidated in our country, in the People's Democra-
cies, without a self-sacrificing struggle by the working
people against the power of the capitalists and landlords?

The people of the Soviet Union, of the Chinese People's
Republic, of all the People's Democracies, won their free-
dom in stern struggle; they have become the creators of
the new and most democratic society, in which there is no
exploitation of man by man. Judge for yourself, Lord Rus-
sell, how objective and convincing is Mr. Dulles' asser-
tion that nowhere in the world does the Communist Party
maintain its rule except by forcibly imposing that rule
upon the majority.

I cannot help but draw attention to Mr. Dulles' exhor-
tation that power should be exercised only when "this
reflected the freely given consent of the governed." This
is precisely the stand we Communists take, and we fight
for this, for it is the people who are the determining force,
their will is sacred, it is their interests that the govern-
ments should express if they are really worth anything. In

121

our opinion, it is not the people who must serve the gov-
ernment, but the government which must serve the peo-
ple.

Perhaps I am saying things which Mr. Dulles does not
like. However, I prefer speaking sharply but truthfully to
speaking politely but falsely.

Take the Government of the Soviet Union, let us say, or
any other socialist country, and compare its composition
with that of the Government of the United States of Amer-
ica or any other capitalist country. Who is in power in the
one and in the other? The position is so obvious that I don't
think there is any need for me to enlarge upon it. In the
Soviet Union and in the other socialist countries the mem-
bers of the government, the leaders in all bodies of state
power, cannot but serve the interests of the people, for the
very reason that they come from the people, they form part
of the people, have been put forward by the people.

I As far as the bodies both of executive and legislative
powers in the capitalist countries are concerned, though
Mr. Dulles tries to convince us that "the governed entrust
them with government," it is just the opposite. Who does
not know that "people of capital" and "adherents of cap-
ital" rule there? It would be interesting to hear what Mr.
Dulles would say if he were to be asked whose interests
were defended by the Rockefellers and the men in their
service. How can the class interests of the billionaires be
the same as the interests of the workers? Who can believe
that the "governed," that is the people, elect the bodies of
power in the capitalist countries by their own choice, in
accordance with their own interests?

One can only wonder how it comes about that, after all
these so-called "free elections," it is as a rule not work-
ers who are in power in the capitalist countries, but men
of capital, not those who by their toil create the material
and spiritual values, but those who possess the money
with which to buy these values.

No, Mr. Dulles, such "miracles" do not happen, and

things are fairly simple. You speak of "force and vio-
lence" by the Communist parties, but you know far better
what the force of capital, the violence of capital, are. This
is well known by the workers, the small peasants, the
clerks, the handicraftsmen, the entire working people, who
have themselves experienced it, and who, therefore, know
how to measure the sincerity of Mr. Dulles' "indignation"
regarding the "violence" of the Communists.

Mr. Dulles calls for submission to the tenets of the mor-
al law on which his creed is based, and anathematizes
the tenets of the moral law on which the communist ideo-
logy is based, particularly that "variety of communism"
which is espoused by the Soviet Communist Party. And
here Mr. Dulles makes reference to Marx, Lenin and Sta-
lin. For this reason I take the liberty of again drawing
your attention to certain facts.

Mankind has continued for 1,957 years since the birth
of Christ alone, but how many thousands of years had it
existed before our system of chronology? And, as long as
mankind has existed, so long have there been wars. They
were waged by men long before the word communism
ever came into existence, let alone the term "dictatorship
of the proletariat."

On what moral law were those wars based? If we were
to follow Mr. Dulles' logic, who but the Communists are
to blame for those wars? But Marxism, as a theory, has
existed for only just over a hundred years, while the first
socialist state created on the basis of communist ideology
has only been in existence for 40 years!

Recall the Crusades. The whole of Europe supplied war-
riors for the armies of the Crusaders. And they went
through the land with fire and sword, carpeting it with
the corpses of the followers of the Christian religion and
the bodies of the infidels. And how true is it that these
men then fought for the tomb of their Lord? Was it not
rather for the rich lands of Asia Minor? Was it not in order
to take these lands from the Moslem and Byzantine feudal

123

lords and win domination for the European merchants
over the trade routes between Europe and Asia that the
Crusades were organized by the enterprising zealots of the
religion of Christ?

In his letter to you, Mr. Dulles presents the matter as
though communism and the Communists are the chief, vir-
tually the only, culprits of wars.

But was it the Communists who organized and waged
the 30 years' Wars of the Roses in England? Was it they
who kindled the wasteful Hundred Years' War between
England and France(1337-1453)? Was it they who sent
British, French and other troops to the walls of the Rus-
sian city of Sevastopol in 1854, where thousands upon
thousands of Russians, British and French gave their
lives?

And in the name of what moral law was the First World
War started, taking over ten million lives?

When those wars were being fought, priests carrying the
cross and holy images marched in the ranks of the war-
ring troops, praying for the triumph of the arms they had
blessed.

Is there anyone who does not know that the Second
World War was not started by us, was not started by the
socialist state? It was started by the governments of the
bourgeois countries and by bloody fascism, the offspring
of imperialism.

Anyone who follows developments and studies history
can discover the crying contradiction between historical
facts and Mr. Dulles' statements. And this is only natu-
ral, for Mr. Dulles' statements do not conform to histori-
cal truth.

It is not communist ideology, but capitalism alone and its
highest stage, imperialism, with its irreconcilable contra-
dictions (between the monopoly groups) that gives rise
to war. Imperialism has carried the contradictions be-
tween the capitalist states to the limit and during the life-
time of just one generation has caused two of the most

124

devastating world wars, inflicting terrible wounds on
mankind.

With his characteristic bombast, Mr. Dulles declares
that it is not possible to find in the history of the United
States any occasion when an effort has been made to
spread its creed by force of arms. It is allegedly otherwise
with the creed of communism.

Enough of appealing to the history of the U.S.A. , Mr.
Dulles. Surely you know that at one time the territory of
your country was inhabited by numerous brave Indian
tribes, valiant hunters and peaceful tillers? Where today
are the native inhabitants of America? Can you name just
one of them who represents his people in Congress? Can
you give us the name of just one Indian who has become
a millionaire or billionaire? And where are the tribes them-
selves? It is said that they have been driven into reserva-
tions, and that in some amusement parks, by paying a fee,
one can see the descendants of these native inhabitants of
America who are put on show. Exterminate completely an
aboriginal people, destroy them in the name of capitalist

civilization One must have a great belief in miracles

to appeal to the memory of peoples and say that in the
history of the United States there has not been any occa-
sion "when an effort has been made to spread its creed
by force of arms."

I don't want to be misunderstood. I have no intention
whatever of accusing the forefathers of the present inhab-
itants of the United States of America of imposing by
force of arms their creed of belief in white superiority over
the aborigines of America. I am only referring to historical
facts, and no more. Possibly Mr. Dulles interprets them
otherwise. But that is how I am accustomed to understand
them.

Or let me refer to another period in the history of the
United States— the period of the wars between the slave-
owning South and the North. What creed was being im-
posed by the slave-owners of the rich plantations in the

125

southern States, who turned millions of people like them-
selves into disfranchised cattle, just because their skin
was black? The whole world knows that it was not then
a matter of a single occasion of "an effort made to spread
their creed by force of arms," but of the systematic dis-
semination of the creed of the slave-owners. Of course, Mr.
Dulles may forget this, but the facts of history are un-
biased. They refute Mr. Dulles' assertions.

But why go into the past? Is it not in our own time
that in the United States Negroes are being compelled by
force of arms, by flagrant violence, to keep their children
from schools where white children are taught? Isn't it in
our own time that frenzied racists beat up and kill men
with impunity, just because their skins aren't white?

What about the creed of the superiority of the rich, tne
monopolists, over the workers and farmers? On what does
this creed rest if not on the weapons at the disposal of the
monopolists, the handful of millionaires and billionaires?

You will of course remember that in his letter to you
Mr. Dulles said that for the United States "there is no
need to 'abandon' what Lord Russell condemns. On the
contrary, it would be abhorrent and unthinkable that
there should be introduced into our creed the concept of
its maintenance or extension by methods of violence and
compulsion."

But let us resort to facts once more.

Let us recall the United States' vile war against Mex-
ico, as a result of which Texas and other territories were
forcibly wrested from Mexico. Had Mexico attacked the
United States? No, this was the most flagrant aggression
by the United States against a weaker neighbour. And
what about the Spanish-American war of 1898, unleashed
by American imperialism? That was the first war of the
epoch of imperialism. As a result, Spanish colonies like Cu-
ba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines became Ameri-
can colonies. Do you remember those wars, Mr. Dulles?

Or by what concept was the United States guided when

126

it sent troops to the Far East during the Civil War in So-
viet Russia? And how many indirect, camouflaged wars
have been waged by aggressive U.S. circles against other
countries? Let us just recall Guatemala, where a democrat-
ic government, lawfully elected by the people, was de
strayed and a President who enjoyed the support ana con-
fidence of the people forced to leave the country. Or take
such an historical fact as the direct interference by the
United States in the internal affairs of China, and the
open, completely undisguised military support for the
bankrupt Chiang Kai-shek clique, and the ignoring of the
great Chinese People's Republic.

If one were to take Mr. Dulles' words in good faith, one
might assume that he really does believe in non-interfer-
ence in the internal affairs of other countries. But again,
when we turn to the facts, we see that his words are at
variance with reality.

Are the demands of leading statesmen in the U.S.A. that
the Great Powers discuss the state structure of the East
European countries compatible with the concept of non-
interference? Does not such a policy bring to mind the
activities of a colonialist, who wants to settle the affairs
of another country in the same way as he does those of
his own estate?

And what is this Dulles-Eisenhower Doctrine? It also en-
visages direct and open interference by imperialist states in
the internal affairs of the countries of the Middle East under
the guise of fighting communism. Everyone very well
knows that this doctrine denies the right of the people to
decide their own fate for themselves in the way they think
necessary, in accordance with their own interests.

The colonial war in Algeria has been in progress for sev-
eral years now. There is great bloodshed there. Are the
Communists, against whom Mr. Dulles breathes thunder
and lightning, to blame? No, this war was unleashed, by
the representatives of French monopoly capital, who do
not want a peaceful settlement of the Algerian problem,

127

but who are trying to preserve their colonial supremacy
in Algeria by armed force and to extort profits.

What moral laws guide those who send French soldiers
and mercenaries to "pacify" the Algerian population, and
who gave the order for the bombing of the defenceless
Tunisian village of Sakiet Sidi Youssef?

The peoples of the colonial and dependent countries
want to break away from the yoke of colonialism. Some
peoples have already liberated themselves, others are
struggling for their freedom and independence, others
again are gathering their strength, in order to stand up
in the future and break the chains of colonial slavery. The
imperialists are trying to keep their colonies, they want to
accumulate still more wealth by exploiting the peoples of
the colonial and dependent countries.

That is the essence of events in Algeria, Tunisia and
the countries of the Middle East.

Such are the facts. They are stronger than words.
What, then, are the moral laws Mr. Dulles is talking about?

Now let us turn to other questions which Mr. Dulles
touched upon in his letter. He declares that the U.S.A.
rejects the concept of nuclear war. "The United States,"
Mr. Dulles writes, "not only rejects that concept, but strives
earnestly to do something to remove the danger of
nuclear war."

These are fine words. We should welcome them with all
our heart, if they were followed up with practical deeds.
We have often declared and here again declare that the
Soviet Union is most sincerely striving to do everything
that lies within its power to avert events which can lead
to atomic war, the consequences of which will be catas-
trophic for all countries.

Thus, so far as the desire to avert the danger of ato-
mic war is concerned, our positions seemingly coincide.
What, then, is the matter? Why not go from words to
deeds, and make it possible for the peoples to breathe,

freed from the danger of a new world conflagration which
hangs over them like the sword of Damocles? Why not
enable the world — to quote your good words, Professor
Russell — "to live again in a noonday brightness of hope"?

The Soviet Union is ready to settle the disarmament
problem as quickly as is practically possible in the inter-
ests of peace and security of the peoples. We have sup-
ported and still do support a fundamental solution of the
disarmament problem; we have been and still are in fa-
vour of the complete and unconditional prohibition of atom-
ic and hydrogen weapons, the ending of their produc-
tion and testing, the destruction of all existing stockpiles,
and a substantial reduction in armed forces, armaments
and military expenditures — all with the establishment of
reasonable international control.

It is not we who want to hold things up. However, as
you know, due to some considerations, the Western Pow-
ers, and above all the U.S.A., are evading such a solution of
the disarmament problem. If the Western Powers are not
ready to accept a maximum programme, then we have
suggested a minimum programme, in the belief that it is
very important to make a first step, in order then to solve
one problem after another, until finally the day that the
peoples so long for will be reached, the day when war
as a means of solving international problems will be
excluded.

I must tell you, dear Lord Russell, that I am becoming
more and more convinced that certain people in the West
have a biased approach to any Soviet proposals including
those on disarmament in which many Western suggestions
receive careful consideration; they treat them from the
very outset with suspicion and fear, as if they were deal-
ing with a delayed action bomb just about to go off.

Of course, we cannot deny that mutual distrust still
exists; we do not trust the Governments of the Western
Powers in everything, and there is distrust of the
Soviet Union. There's nothing to be done about this: a lot

129

of effort must still be exerted to dispel these suspicions
about the Soviet Union's policy, and the Governments of
the Western Powers must by their deeds show their de-
sire for world peace and international security. Are we not
confronted by yet another phenomenon which prevents us
from reaching an understanding? For the policy of the So-
viet Union is frequently presented in a distorted form with
the deliberate desire of throwing doubt upon it and arous-
ing distrust and suspicion of it.

Judge for yourself, Lord Russell. The U.S. Secretary of
State writes, for example, that the Soviet Union has re-
jected the U.S. proposal for the creation of "an interna-
tional organ of control over all forms of the use of atom-
ic energy."

But to present the matter in this way is to distort the
true facts of the case. In actual fact, when the U.S.A. en-
joyed a monopoly of atomic energy, it suggested the es-
tablishment of some kind of world pool, known as the Ba-
ruch Plan. But the most important question is, for what
aims? If it really had been a matter of prohibiting the pro-
duction and use of atomic energy for military purposes,
without doubt all honest people in the world would have
warmly welcomed the U.S. Government's step. And we
should not now have been faced with these complicated
problems, raised by the nuclear arms drive.

But the facts were otherwise. The U.S. representatives
proposed a plan which, if it had been carried out, would
only have strengthened the United States' monopoly over
atomic energy, and would have made the U.S.A. the com-
plete and only master of the secret of the production of
atomic bombs— which, of course, could only suit certain
monopoly circles, which have laid, and still lay, claim to
world domination.

How could such a plan be accepted by the peace-loving
countries, when it was clear to everyone that it was based
not on concern for peace and international security, but
on the selfish aims of the imperialist monopolies? Even

130

the United States itself later repudiated the fundamental
principles of its own plan.

We say: Let us act, let us impose a strict prohibition on
atomic and hydrogen weapons, immediately cease testing
these weapons and establish reasonable control. Let us
come to an agreement on conditions which do not trespass
on the interests of the parties concerned, which do not
strengthen some and weaken others, on conditions which
would not lead to states losing their independence and
sovereignty, whichever system they may belong to, and
on conditions which would not offer advantages to some
countries to the detriment of others-

The time is ripe and, before the opportunity is lost, the
Soviet Union calls on the Western Powers. It is time to
go over from words to deeds, we must act on the basis
of equal rights, without dictation— not from a "positions
of strength," but from a position of reason.

As I have already written, Lord Russell, in my previous
letter to you, man's reason and conscience cannot be re-
conciled to the dangerous threat of nuclear war, common
sense protests against the senseless and— I will speak
frankly— criminal waste of national wealth on the invention
of ever more terrible means of destruction and devastation.
The scientists' wonderful discoveries which have captured
man's imagination can bring abundance and happi-
ness to mankind, if they are turned to peaceful aims, to
lightening people's work, eradicating disease: in short, to
everything that makes man's life on earth joyous and full.

In a situation which is poisoned by the cold war, even
the greatest achievements of science, the products of
great minds and persistent work by people worthy of
respect, are painted in military hues, and adapted for pur-
poses foreign to the spirit of man. You have probably no-
ticed, Lord Russell, that in the United States even the
launching of the sputniks was considered by many offici-
al spokesmen, and by the press in particular, primarily
from the point of view of their military significance. Now

131

we are told by the press that American scientists have
been given the task of designing sputniks to be used for
reconnaissance purposes.

In his letter to you, Mr. Dulles also touches on the ques-
tion of outer space. Recalling the well-known proposal
made by the President of the United States, Mr. Eisen-
hower, Mr. Dulles says that the Soviet Union now has "the
chance to demonstrate that its words of peace mean some-
thing more than a mere effort to lull the non-communist
world into a mood of illusory security."

You probably remember, Lord Russell, that the Presi-
dent of the U.S.A. proposed the prohibition of the use of
outer (interplanetary) space for testing missiles intended
for military use, and also to end the production of weap-
ons which envisage the use of interplanetary space— in
short, the prohibition of intercontinental ballistic rockets.

As 'you know, the Soviet Union has expressed its readi-
ness to examine this question too. The only question is,
how? It is proposed that we extract from the general prob-
lem of disarmament the question of the intercontinental
rocket, leaving other questions of disarmament— for exam-
ple, that of the prohibition of atomic and hydrogen weap-
ons—unresolved. What is to be done? You must agree
that it is unreasonable to focus attention on outer space,
on intercontinental ballistic rockets— which, incidentally,
the U.S.A. does not yet possess— and leave the question of
nuclear weapons and the whole range of disarmament
problems as before.

Surely, with such logic and such an approach, even it
we were to manage to reach a definite agreement on outer
space, the whole question of disarmament would have
acquired a kind of ill-omened character: the unlimited pro-
duction and accumulation of atomic and hydrogen weapons
would continue, as well as other kinds of armament, until
finally they were brought into use by some evil will.

This is the essence of the question and this is the logi-
cal conclusion, if the matter is approached seriously.

132

We agree to discuss the control of cosmic space, which
is in fact the question of intercontinental ballistic rockets.
But it must be examined as part of the general disarma-
ment problem, including the question of prohibiting nu-
clear weapons and winding up the U.S. military bases sur-
rounding the Soviet Union.

We are told that here the Soviet Union is again "pre-
senting conditions," is again tying one disarmament ques-
tion to another. Yes, we are tying them together in the
same way that they are tied together in real life; for if
we did otherwise, instead of an end to the arms drive, this
drive could develop speeds such as the world has never
known. There could be only one result: the moment would
come, when, at the behest of imperialist circles, a holo-
caust would burst upon the world — and then it would be
too late to discuss whether or not one disarmament prob-
lem is related to another.

The Soviet Union, of course, has weapons against these
bases. It also has intercontinental ballistic rockets. And
although the United States of America is a considerable
distance from the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union now pos-
sesses the means of combating the U.S.A., should
the latter unleash war against us. The Soviet Union
also had these means before in the shape of intercontinen-
tal bombers, but the ballistic rocket is, of course, an im-
proved weapon. This is why we can understand the U.S.
interest in the problem of outer space. It demands the pro-
hibition of the intercontinental ballistic rocket in order to
put itself in a more advantageous position, should war
break out. If a sensible approach is to be made, then
thought must be given not only to one's own security, but
also to the security of other countries in Asia and Europe,
where American military bases are sited and which, should
war break out, would be subject to retaliatory attacks.

I think therefore, Lord Russell, that you will agree that
the question of the control of the use of outer space must
be decided simultaneously with the prohibition of atom-

133

ic and hydrogen weapons, the ending of tests, the dis-
mantling of American military bases sited close to the So-
viet Union and other socialist countries and directed
against those countries.

The Soviet Union is, therefore, trying to solve the disar-
mament problem in such a way that its solution will be
a threat neither to the U.S.A., nor to the U.S.S.R., nor to
any other country and win favour neither the U.S.A., nor
the U.S.S.R., to the disadvantage of other countries. Such
an approach is, it seems, the only correct and reasonable
one. It is, therefore, possible to say in advance that if the
leaders in the U.S.A. hope to use pressure and diplomat-
ic evasions to achieve agreements placing the U.S.A. in
the position of a protected and invulnerable country, while
other countries are rendered defenceless, then they hope
in vain.

I have already had occasion to say that if the "policy
of strength" towards the Soviet Union was previously
unwise and dangerous, then in present-day conditions
it is simply adventurist and disastrous for the American
people as well.

You very well know, Lord Russell, that modern arma-
ments and atomic and hydrogen bombs will be excep-
tionally dangerous in wartime not only for the two belliger-
ent states in terms of outright devastation and destruc-
tion of human beings; they will also be deadly for states
wishing to stand aside from military operations, since the
poisoned soil, air, food, etc., will cause terrible torments
and the slow annihilation of millions of people. There is
in the world today an enormous quantity of atom and hy-
drogen bombs. According to the scientists' calculations, if
they were all to be exploded simultaneously, the existence
of almost every living thing on earth would be threat-
ened.

Is it not, therefore, time to think again, to end this duel
of words, to eliminate the cold war, which was not begun
by the peace-loving peoples, and turn to concrete negotia-

134

tions in order, in a business-like atmosphere, paying heed
to each other's interests, patiently to advance step by
step towards the solution of urgent international prob-
lems, including disarmament? And for this there is no
need for either the Soviet Union or the United States of
America to renounce its own ideology.

Mr. Dulles, however, believes that the Soviet Union
must reject "at least that part of Soviet communist
creed."

Which part, Mr. Dulles, would you want Communists to
reject? What if we were to suggest that Mr. Dulles should
reject private property and establish public property in
his country? I do not think that Mr. Dulles is prepared to
do this. And not only he, but others of his persuasion.
Therefore we consider it absurd to present the question in
this way. Only a person who is not trying to achieve agree-
ment between states, not trying to eliminate the cold
war or ease international tension, only a person who is
against peaceful co-existence, can present the question in
that way.

Certain eminent political figures have adopted the prac-
tice of blackening the communist movement, of present-
ing it in a distorted form as an aggressive teaching, alleg-
edly based on violence and wars, of presenting the mat-
ter in such a way that the socialist countries appear as
the instigators of international tension. They are guided
by the rule: the more you accentuate the atmosphere of dis-
trust among states, the better. Such a policy is understand-
able. The imperialists exploit the people's fear of a war,
so that it is easier for them to extort constantly growing
taxes from the population, and waste huge sums on the
armaments drive. They are not disturbed that such a poli-
cy can lead to war— for war is the most abundant source
of enrichment for rhe monopolies.

We have, condemned and still condemn such an ill ad-
vised policy, which can lead to no good However much
our opponents may slander us, the socialist countries will

135

not disappear, and communism, the most progressive and
humanist teaching, will not cease to exist.

How many attempts have been made to destroy commu-
nism by force of arms! History has convincingly shown
where this leads to. Only short-sighted people can think that
the ideas of communism can be destroyed by war. These
ideas are reaching the minds and hearts of more and
more millions of people, and are spreading far and wide.
Everyone remembers how, after the First World War un-
leashed by the imperialists, and as a result of the Octo-
ber Revolution, the first socialist state in the world was
created in Russia, a state in which the people took the pow-
er into their own hands. The Second World War, also
unleashed by the imperialists, aroused a mighty people's
movement and led to the victory of socialism in a number
of countries of Europe and Asia, and to the formation of
the great camp of the socialist countries.
/ I think that if imperialism unleashes a new world war,
it will perish in it. The peoples will not want to tolerate
a system which cannot exist without wars, without the
annihilation of millions of people, to enrich a handful of
monopolists.

I should like to say once more that ideological ques-
tions are not solved in the way Mr. Dulles suggests. Ide-
ological questions and questions of social organization are
the internal affairs of the peoples of each country.

These are the questions about which, on learning of Mr.
Dulles' letter, I considered it necessary to say a few
words. Please excuse the fact that I have had to elucidate
in some considerable detail some positions which received
such incorrect treatment in Mr. Dulles' letter.

With deep respect,

N. KHRUSHCHOV

March 5, 1958
Kommunist, No. 5, 1958

REPLIES
TO QUESTIONS PUT BY TRYBUNA LUDU

March 10, 1958

The editorial board of the Polish newspaper Trybuna
Ludu requested N. S. Khrushchov, First Secretary of the
Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union, to answer a number of questions.

On March 10, N. S. Khrushchov received Z. Broniarek,
a member of the newspaper's editorial board, and M. Lucki,
the paper's permanent correspondent in Moscow, and had
a talk with them. Below we publish the questions sub-
mitted by the editorial board of Trybuna Ludu and
N. S. Khrushchov's replies.

Question: What is your estimate, Comrade Khrushchov,
of the implementation of the decisions of the 20th Con-
gress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union during
the past two years in developing Soviet national economy,
and in particular:

a) in developing Soviet industry and the improvement
of methods of industrial management;

b) in developing Soviet agriculture and the forms of
agricultural management;

c) in improving the living standards of the Soviet
working people?

Answer: I believe there is no need for me to tell the read-
ers of Trybuna Ludu of the magnificent prospects for the
development of our country's national economy outlined

137

by the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the So-
viet Union. They were extensively reported in your news-
paper and in other Polish papers. To put it briefly, the So-
viet people, headed by the Communist Party, are firmly
resolved not only to overtake but also to outstrip in the
near future, the leading capitalist countries, including the
United States, in per capita output of the most important
items.

In the past two years we achieved considerable suc-
cesses in developing our national economy. Today Soviet
industry is working much better and is producing far more
goods than it was two years ago. In 1957, industrial out-
put was 22 per cent higher than in 1955, the year pre-
ceding the 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U. In those two
years steel production increased by 5,800,000 tons, coal
by 72 million tons, oil by 27,500,000 tons, cement by
6,400,000 tons and electric power by 39,000 million
kilowatt-hours.

So that you may be better able to judge the significance
of these figures I must add that the increase in output
for the past two years exceeded the total volume of produc-
tion in pre-revolutionary Russia for the year 1913: steel by
almost 50 per cent, coal by 150 per cent, oil by almost 200
per cent, cement by more than 300 per cent and electric
power by 1,900 per cent.

One of the chief measures implemented in our country
in that period was the reorganization of management in
industry and building, which may justly be called a revolu-
tionary measure. The reorganization of management in in-
dustry and the liquidation of industrial ministries that
had played a positive role at a certain stage of develop-
ment gave wider scope to the initiative of workers and
production executives Now the management of factories
and construction jobs is concentrated in the economic
areas and is effected by the economic councils set up in
these areas. The combination of centralized planning with
democratic managerial methods is the key to a more ef-

ficient application of the advantages accruing from the so-
cialist economic system.

The period following reorganization of our industry has
already yielded excellent results. The recently held all-
Union conference of chairmen of economic councils and
Party and local government leaders has shown how bene-
ficial and timely was the reorganization of management in
industry and building. Soviet industry is now working on
a higher level and with much fuller use of its resources.

In future the positive aspects of the reorganization of
management in industry will unquestionably make them-
selves felt to a still greater extent and this will result in
a further gigantic growth of industrial production in the
Soviet Union. We shall speed up the carrying out of our
main economic task — to overtake and surpass the lead-
ing capitalist countries in per capita industrial produc-
tion within the shortest period possible.

There have also been considerable achievements in agri-
culture. The collective-farm system gave the Soviet peas-
antry the opportunity to radically reorganize agricultur-
al economy and transform life in the Soviet countryside.
Today our country produces much more grain, cotton,
sugar-beet, meat, milk, butter and other farm produce than
ever before. Suffice it to say that in comparison with 1913
the quantity of marketed produce has increased: meat by
100 per cent, milk by more than 200 per cent, and wool
also by more than 200 per cent. In the last two years alone
the number of cattle in the Soviet Union has increased
by 7,900,000, that of pigs by 10,300,000, and that of sheep
by 16,800,000. Or take such a fact as the increase in the
cropped area. Thanks to the development of virgin and
disused lands, the area under crops in the Soviet Union
has increased by 36 million hectares in the last four years
alone, and this made it possible even under unfavourable
weather conditions to grow much more grain last year
than in the best harvest years in pre-revolutionary Russia.

139

Of course, we still have a great deal to do in order to
raise annual grain production in the Soviet Union to
11,000 million poods as required by the decision of the
20th Congress of the Party, but we shall unquestionably
carry out the task set us by the Party Congress.

As for the prospects for the development of animal hus-
bandry, our task is to overtake the United States in the
per capita production of meat, milk and butter within the
next few years. This means that, with our present popu-
lation, we shall have to bring meat output up to 20-21 mil-
lion tons and that of milk up to 70 million tons. There
is every condition for this target, too, to be most certainly
reached.

I should like to recall a few facts. Three years ago, at
the January 1955 Plenary Meeting of the C.P.S.U. Cen-
tral Committee, we set a number of targets for the in-
creased output of livestock products in the next six years.
Some of these targets, such as, for example, higher milk
yields on the collective farms and the increase of sales
of milk to the state by 80 per cent, have been fulfilled
ahead of schedule, in three years. By 1957 the U.S.S.R.
already produced some 55 million tons of milk, that is to
say, about 95 per cent of American milk output. As for
the total butter output, we have already caught up with
the United States.

Trybuna Ludu readers perhaps already know that the
recent Plenary Meeting of the C.P.S.U. Central Commit-
tee discussed the further development of the collective-
farm system and the reorganization of the machine and
tractor stations. A nation-wide discussion of the meas-
ures proposed by the Central Committee of the Party is
now under way. The implementation of measures to reor-
ganize the machine and tractor stations will constitute a
major and revolutionary step in the development of Soviet
agriculture.

Speaking of the improvement of the living conditions
of the Soviet people, one must first of all stress the con-

140

siderable rise in their living standards and the fuller sat-
isfaction of their constantly growing material and cul-
tural requirements.

The national income, which is the most general index
of the people's well-being, has risen in the U.S.S.R. 14-
fold per head of population since 1913, whereas in the
United States it has risen less than 100 per cent, and in
France and Britain about 60 per cent.

In fulfilment of the decisions of the 20th Party Con-
gress we have raised the wages of the lower-paid cate-
gories of factory and office workers and reduced the length
of the working day on the eve of national holidays and on
Saturdays. A seven-hour working day is being introduced,
with a six-hour day for underground workers in the coal
and ore-mining industries.

The scale of housing construction has been greatly in-
creased in our country. During the past two years alone,
houses with a total floor space of 85 million square me-
tres have been built in towns and workers' housing settle-
ments. In the same period, 1,420,000 homes have been built
by collective farmers and by intellectuals working in the
countryside.

The state allocates huge sums every year for social
insurance, benefits, pensions and scholarships, for free
education, medical and other services. Last year, for
instance, appropriations for these purposes totalled more
than 201,000 million rubles, or approximately one-third
of the total budget expenditure of the U.S.S.R.

In speaking of the improvement of living conditions,
one must mention the expansion of state and co-operative
trade. Here are some figures to illustrate this. In 1957,
the state and co-operative shops sold to the population
250 per cent more meat and meat products, 260 per cent
more butter, milk and dairy products, 220 per cent more
sugar, and 180 per cent more fabrics than in 1940.

The Communist Party and the Soviet Government re-
gard it as their main task to work for the further all-round

141

improvement of the living conditions of the working peo-
ple. And we are firmly convinced that the time is not far
off when the citizens of the Soviet Union and of all so-
cialist countries will have much higher living standards
than the working people of any capitalist country. After
all, the main task of the Communists is to better the life
of the people, and the socialist system offers the working
people everything necessary for its accomplishment.

This, briefly, is what can be said in reply to your first
question.

Question: The great achievements of Soviet science and
technology in recent years have attracted public attention.

What do you think of the prospects for the development
of science and engineering in the Soviet Union?

Answer: You are right in saying that the recent achieve-
ments of Soviet science and technology have attracted
the attention of the public. This is no accident. The Soviet
Union built the world's first atomic power station, the
world's most powerful microparticle accelerator, launched
the world's first atomic ice-breaker, and is regularly ex-
panding the application of atomic energy to peaceful pur-
poses. Our scientists were the first to report to an interna-
tional conference on their work on controlled thermo-nuc-
lear reactions. We were the first to put giant jet air liners
into regular passenger service. The discoveries of our geo-
graphers in the Arctic and their truly heroic explorations
in the Antarctic are widely known. The intercontinental
ballistic missile was developed in the Soviet Union. The
crowning achievement of Soviet science and technology
was the development and successful launching, on Octo-
ber 4, 1957, of the world's first artificial earth satellite,
which was soon followed by another.

Let us recall what our opponents in the West have but
recently been saying and writing about the scientific and
cultural level of the Soviet Union. They were saying that
the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries were
lagging behind in science and technology; this, they

142

claimed, was because socialism does not provide the scien-
tist and engineer with conditions for creative development.

Everybody can now see what these vicious assertions
are worth. The socialist system offers unlimited oppor-
tunities for the all-round development of the individual and
for creative endeavour. Socialism opens up such great
prospects for scientists, engineers and technicians, for
the creative work of our intellectuals and of every Soviet
man and woman, as the capitalist system is incapable of
ever ensuring.

That is why the West now speaks differently about the
level of science and technology in the Soviet Union and
not only of that. The more sober-minded people there are
arriving at conclusions which bring them close to a re-
cognition of the advantages of developing science and
technology along socialist lines. But you must have read
all this in the bourgeois press yourselves.

The achievements of our science and technology are a
striking demonstration of the advantages of the socialist
system. Soviet science draws upon the achievements of the
whole of our national economy and, in turn, contributes to
its development. The Soviet people are interested in the
development of science and technology and provide our
scientists and engineers with everything necessary for
their work, everything necessary to ensure scientific and
technological progress. The Communist Party and the So-
viet Government regard the development of science as
a matter of great importance to the state and give every
assistance and support to scientists, inventors and inno-
vators in production.

As regards the prospects for the development of science
and technology in the Soviet Union, they are very hearten-
ing and encouraging prospects. There is no doubt that our
science and technology will continue to develop successful-
ly and that Soviet scientists and engineers will give us
the pleasure of witnessing fresh achievements, making
their contribution to the building of communism.

143

Speaking of the further development of science and
technology, one must stress the paramount importance of
theoretical research, which opens up new paths in science,
and of such branches as automation, telemechanics and
computing machinery, where achievements, given practical
application, greatly lighten people's work.

But the point I want to stress mostly is that Soviet
science and technology are developing in close co-opera-
tion with science and technology in all the socialist coun-
tries. Fraternal mutual assistance and skilful co-ordina-
tion of our joint efforts in this field will ensure an even
greater flourishing of scientific and technical thought in
the socialist countries.

Question: The 20th Congress elaborated the famous
theses on the peaceful co-existence of the two systems and
the possibility of averting wars in our time.

What are the prospects today for a relaxation in inter-
national tension and the development of co-operation be-
tween countries with different social systems in the field
of economy, and also in the field of scientific and cultural
exchanges?

Answer: I would like to point out, first of all, that the
proposition of the peaceful co-existence of the two systems
was first put forward by our great teacher, V. I. Lenin, who
pointed out on more than one occasion that the social-
ist and the capitalist systems can co-exist peacefully if they
do not interfere in each other's internal affairs. The 20th
Congress of the C.P.S.U., drawing on Lenin's teaching and
summarizing the experience of international relations over
a long period, stressed vigorously that in our time, when
two world systems — the socialist and the capitalist sys-
tems— are in existence, the peaceful co-existence of states
with different social systems has become a vital necessity.
To think otherwise is to carry matters to the unleashing
of war, which modern weapons would make the most
frightful and most devastating that mankind has ever
known. Today the question presents itself in this way:

144

either peaceful co-existence or war. The 20th Congress of
the C.P.S.U. also stressed that the growth of the peace
forces in all countries is such that it is now possible to
avert war. These peace forces can curb any fomenter of
war if they display vigilance and if the. peaceful peoples
of the world make greater efforts in the struggle for peace.

It may safely be said that although certain circles in
the imperialist countries are clinging frantically to the
bankrupt "positions of strength" policy, the prospects for
the relaxation of international tension and the develop-
ment of economic co-operation and scientific and cultur-
al exchanges between countries with different social sys-
tems have now become more favourable. Take, for in-
stance, the agreement on the development of cultural con-
tacts concluded between the Soviet Union and the U.S.A.
It is a big step forward. The socialist countries have made
definite progress in the development of cultural contacts
with the capitalist countries. Indeed, every socialist coun-
try is doing its utmost to extend cultural relations with
other countries, the Polish People's Republic among others,
having done much in this direction. One can only wel-
come this development of co-operation, this strengthening
of friendly ties between peoples, for it leads to better
understanding and the consolidation of the cause of
peace.

It is well known that the socialist countries have es-
tablished economic ties with many capitalist countries. Re-
cently, business circles in capitalist countries have been
making more frequent statements in favour of the extension
of these contacts. Today there are few people in the West
who believe in the efficiency of the bankrupt policy of eco-
nomically blockading the socialist countries. The world
socialist economy is able to produce everything needed
for its further development, and no bans imposed by the
ruling circles of certain countries on trade with the so-
cialist countries can prevent us from continuing to ad-
vance as successfully as we are now doing. If anyone

145

stands to lose from these prohibitions, it is the business
circles of the Western Powers. Their interests call for
the extension of trade with the socialist countries. For
our part, we also welcome the expansion of trade be-
tween the socialist and the capitalist countries.

The socialist countries have always stood for the all-
round development of economic relations with all the
other countries. It goes without saying that these rela-
tions must be based on the strictest observance of equal-
ity, mutual advantage and non-interference in internal
affairs.

Thus, there exist objective prerequisites for the exten-
sion of economic relations between the capitalist and so-
cialist states. The translation of these objective prerequi-
sites into reality will, undoubtedly, promote peace through-
out the world.

There still are and there will continue to be no small
number of obstacles and difficulties in the way of the fur-
ther development of economic, cultural and other relations.
But, given the willingness of both sides, these difficulties
and obstacles will be overcome.

We can say with confidence that international tension
will be further relaxed. This will be brought about, above
all, by ending the cold war and renouncing the imperial-
ist "positions of strength" policy, by the establishment of
contacts and the achievement of still greater understand-
ing between states.

The Soviet Government, as you know, has recently put
forward a proposal to hold a conference at top level with
Heads of Government participating. The proposal has re-
ceived ardent support in all countries of the world.

It can be said in all certainty that if a top-level con-
ference is held and understanding is reached, it will make
a great contribution to the further relaxation of interna^
tional tension and the establishment of greater confidence
between states with different social systems.

Question: The question of a conference of Heads of Gov-

146

ernment is now a very urgent one, and we would like to
know how it stands now that the Soviet Government has
accepted the French Government's proposal to hold a For-
eign Ministers' meeting. If you could reply to this ques-
tion, Comrade Khrushchov, it would be of great interest
to our readers.

Answer: We have set forth our views on this question
in the latest message sent by the Soviet Government to
President Eisenhower of the United States, and also in
our aide-memoire. These documents were published in our
press.

Why do we consider it possible to accept the proposal
of the French Foreign Minister, M. Pineau, on a Foreign
Ministers' meeting to prepare a summit conference? We
are of the opinion that any means are good if they expe-
dite the convocation of a summit conference in the inter-
ests of peace. We, therefore, approve of the use of all
channels if they really facilitate preparations for this meet-
ing. But we fear that diplomatic channels may be turned
into channels for endless correspondence or endless talks
and give the peoples the impression that a summit meet-
ing is being prepared (and this is now desired and actu-
ally demanded by all nations), while in actual fact there
might not be any preparation at all.

Secret talks through diplomatic channels are very
handy for politicians who oppose the meeting, since such a
system of negotiations prevents the peoples from knowing
anything because nothing is released for publication. You
know that exchange of messages can be continued for
ever, and diplomats are well aware of its possibilities.

I repeat that we do not reject talks through diplomat-
ic channels. In the present instance we are for the kind
of negotiations which would be useful for the prepara-
tion of a summit conference. If we see, however, that dip-
lomatic channels and the secret form of the talks do not
expedite the meeting, but tend to prevent it, to mislead
the people, to bury quietly the idea of a meeting, we shall

147

have nothing to do with them. We believe, therefore, that
it is better to have a Foreign Ministers' meeting, because
it must be scheduled for some specific date and will be
watched by the public. If the Ministers' meeting is broken
off and no agreement is reached on a mutually acceptable
agenda or other questions of procedure, everyone will see
that certain Ministers have assembled and that one coun-
try has adopted this position and another country that posi-
tion. Public opinion will then be able to determine and
assess who really stands for a top-level conference with
the participation of Heads of Government, and who is
against it.

"" We are not dogmatic on this point and do not oppose
in principle any meeting of Ministers. True, we do not
cherish any illusions, because we know these Ministers.
But it is obvious that a Ministers' conference cannot be
avoided, and they will have to meet. If the Ministers tor-
pedo the summit conference at their meeting, everyone
will see that the Soviet Government representatives were
right in warning the public that there was little chance of
a Foreign Ministers' conference justifying the hopes placed
in it by the peoples. We must, of course, keep in mind
the fact that public pressure is now very strong, and that
even if some of the Ministers are inwardly against ending
the cold war, they will be compelled, by public pressure,
to take some positive steps, and if this pressure grows,
to reckon with public opinion.

At a Ministers' conference, of course, positive decisions
can also be achieved. We, for our part, will spare no ef-
forts to make the Foreign Ministers' meeting successful.
We believe, however, that the Ministers should not dis-
cuss questions in substance, but should organizationally
prepare and ensure the convocation of a top-level confer-
ence with the participation of Heads of Government. If all
the questions are discussed in substance by the Foreign
Ministers' meeting, why have a summit conference at all?

Question: We feel that if you, Comrade Khrushchov and

148

Comrade Bulganin, were to visit Washington for a meet-
ing at the highest level, it would produce a deep impres-
sion.

Answer: We are aware that owing to certain circum-
stances the United States President has difficulty in leaving
his country. We are ready to meet on United States terri-
tory for that matter. The distance between Moscow and
Washington is not so great: we can breakfast at home,
lunch on the plane, and dine in the United States.

For the sake of peace and co-existence we are ready
to meet anywhere, if only we are sure that urgent prob-
lems will be settled in the way desired by the peoples of
all countries.

Question: Please let us know your opinion on the de-
velopment of relations between the Communist and Work-
ers' parties during the past two years in the light of the
decisions of the 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U.

Answer: During the past two years relations between
the Communist and Workers' parties have developed
and grown stronger, as hitherto, following the principles
of proletarian internationalism. The Communist parties
are called upon to unite the peoples in the struggle for
peace and socialism. That is why the Communist parties
strive for close bonds with each other and for unity of
action. At the same time every party is absolutely
independent politically and organizationally and express-
es the interests of its own working class and working
people, the national interests of its country. The interna-
tional and national interests of the working class, as of
all working people, do not contradict each other, but on
the contrary, blend harmoniously together. The Commu-
nist parties have always regarded the strengthening of in-
ternational proletarian solidarity as their sacred duty, and
have always fought resolutely against any attempts to
weaken the unity of the international working-class move-
ment.

In the Inaugural Address of the Working Men's Inter-

149

national Association Marx wrote: "Past experience has
shown how disregard of that bond of brotherhood which
ought to exist between the workmen of different countries
and incite them to stand firmly by each other in all their
struggles for emancipation, will be chastised by the com-
mon discomfiture of their incoherent efforts." In their re-
lations the Communist and Workers' parties proceed on
the basis of this wise admonition.

Now we can say with satisfaction that the unbreakable
unity of the international communist movement, which
has been particularly strengthened in the past few years,
is the supreme expression of this fraternal union of the
workers of all countries. It did not come of itself. The
Communist and Workers' parties have forged it in the
struggle against the attempts of imperialist reaction and
revisionists to split the world communist movement.

The enemies of the working class counted on causing
"complications" in relations between the fraternal parties,
and particularly between the parties of the socialist
states. With this end in view they tried to exaggerate dif-
ficulties encountered in building socialism and to take ad-
vantage of certain individual misunderstandings and ir-
regularities in relations between the socialist states. These
misunderstandings can, >of course, occur, since an absolute-
ly new type of relations is taking shape — relations which
have no precedent in history. As experience shows, how-
ever, all the problems concerning relations between the
socialist states are solved, and can be solved, by friendly
discussion on the basis of the strict observance of the prin-
ciples of proletarian internationalism.

This, of course, does not suit our enemies. They would
like to see the peoples of the socialist countries at log-
gerheads. This would make it easier to realize their cher-
ished dream of restoring capitalism in the People's De-
mocracies. It is common knowledge, for instance, that the
reactionary imperialist forces wanted to make use of the
events in Hungary for their own ends; the same applies

150

to the difficulties encountered in building socialism in
Poland. Moreover, they actively interfered in the Hungar-
ian events. The counter-revolutionary forces rushed there
to crush socialist Hungary and restore the fascist re-
gime. But the sound forces of the Hungarian people unit-
ed to repel fascist reaction and, helped by the Soviet
Union and the other socialist states, defeated the coun-
ter-revolutionary insurgents.

If there were formerly some people who doubted wheth-
er the Hungarian events were provoked by the imperi-
alist forces, everyone now sees who inspired and encour-
aged the fascist thugs in Hungary.

The enemies of socialism have shouted their heads off,
and still continue shouting about some sort of "special
processes" taking place in Poland, about some sort of ten-
dencies in Poland to depart from the path of socialism.
The proverb: "A hungry man dreams of buns," is appro-
priate here.

Can the working people voluntarily forfeit their social-
ist gains to their enemies, agree that capitalism be re-
stored in the countries of socialism, that the factories be
returned again to a handful of capitalists, and that the
land be returned to the landowners and kulaks?

Can the working people of these countries permit the
return of unemployment and cruel exploitation of the work-
ers and peasants, and allow the capitalists and landown-
ers to saddle the working people again?

It is absolutely clear how illusory and impracticable are
the dreams of representatives of international reaction
about the restoration of capitalism in the socialist states.

It is obvious that the working people of Poland will
never permit restoration of the rule of capitalists and
landowners. Rallied closely around the Polish United
Workers' Party and overcoming all difficulties, they will
continue confidently along the road of socialist construc-
tion. The forward march of a country whose people have
chosen the road of socialism and are working to build a

151

new society without rich or poor, without the exploitation
of man by man, without unemployment and poverty,
cannot be reversed. That is even less possible now that
every socialist country relies upon the support and as-
sistance of the whole of the mighty socialist camp.

The working people of every socialist country are deep-
ly concerned with everything that happens in the other
fraternal, friendly countries.

The camp of socialism is constantly growing and gain-
ing in strength. This was borne out by the recent Meetings
of Representatives of Communist and Workers' Parties in
Moscow. The results of these meetings have shown the
whole world the ridiculous nature of the assertions of im-
perialist propagandists about the "crisis of communism."
These meetings are a major ideological and political vic-
tory for the world communist and working-class move-
ment. The Declaration and the Peace Manifesto, unanimous-
ly adopted by the representatives of the fraternal parties,
are documents of great mobilizing power, documents testi-
fying to the unanimity and cohesion of the Communist
and Workers' parties in the struggle for socialism, for
world peace.

Question: What would you, Comrade Khrushchov, like
to tell the readers of Trybuna Ludu about the new tenden-
cies you see in the development of friendship and co-opera-
tion between Poland and the Soviet Union?

Answer: First of all I must stress that friendship and
co-operation between People's Poland and the Soviet
Union have always developed and are developing on the
basis of the Leninist principles of proletarian interna-
tionalism and mutual assistance, on the basis of complete
equality and respect for each other's interests. We have
never thought of any other relations. The friendship
between our two countries is cemented by the blood spilt
in the common struggle against tsarist autocracy, against
the capitalists and landowners, and against the German

152

fascist invaders during the Second World War. This great
friendship has endured many stern trials.

Persistently clinging to the evil legacy of the past, the
enemies of socialism are searching for aspects of the
history of relations between our two countries which would
somehow cast a shadow on the friendship between our peo-
ples. What is more, they are speculating on nationalist
sentiments and are trying to stir them up. Is there anyone
who does not realize the purpose of this? But all the at-
tempts of our enemies to undermine friendship between
the peoples of the Polish People's Republic and the Soviet
Union are doomed to failure, because the peoples of our
countries know full well that only our enemies will stand
to gain if there is no friendship between Poland and the
Soviet Union.

Certain violations of Leninist principles that occurred
in the relations between our countries in the past have
been completely eliminated through the consistent imple-
mentation of the well-known Declaration of the Soviet
Government of October 30, 1956, and the Joint Soviet-Polish
Statement of November 18 of the same year. In its rela-
tions with Poland as well as with all other socialist
countries, the Soviet Union has invariably proceeded on
the basis of the great Leninist principles that have been
verified by experience. We have always stood, and we now
stand for the development of fraternal relations between
our countries, for the utmost respect for the interests of
the peoples of our countries, for the development of mutual-
ly advantageous trade between the Polish People's
Republic and the U.S.S.R., for the maximum extension of
cultural, sports and other contacts between them, for
mutual aid and support in the common struggle for social-
ism, for the closest co-operation between the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union and the Polish United Work-
ers' Party. The peoples of the Soviet Union and Poland
are well aware that the stronger the friendship between
them, between all countries of the socialist camp, the more

153

impregnable our countries will be to any enemy, the
greater will be the might of the new socialist world, and
the stronger will be world peace.

We should always remember that the great strength of
the socialist camp lies in the friendship and cohesion of
the socialist countries.

Co-operation between our countries in the international
field is developing fruitfully in the struggle for lasting
peace, against the threat of a new world war. This was
shown, specifically, by the support given by the Polish
Government to the Soviet Union's recent moves in foreign
policy and the support given by the Soviet Government to
the valuable Polish proposal concerning the establishment
of a zone in Central Europe free from atomic and hydrogen
weapons.

The recent agreement on cultural co-operation in 1958
concluded between our countries and the Soviet-Polish
trade agreement for 1958-60, providing for a considerable
increase in trade, will undoubtedly be of major importance
for the development of relations between our countries in
the coming period.

Allow me to express confidence that the fraternal
friendship, mutual assistance and all-round co-operation
between Poland and the Soviet Union, and among all
socialist countries, will continue to grow and develop for
the good of our peoples, for the consolidation of world
peace.

I would like to avail myself of this opportunity to convey
through your paper fraternal, heartfelt greetings to
the Polish people and to wish them new successes in build-
ing a socialist Poland.

Pravda, March 12, 1958

SPEECH

AT MEETING OF ELECTORS

OF KALININ CONSTITUENCY, MOSCOW

March 14, 1958

Comrades,

Allow me first of all to thank you, all the electors of the
Kalinin constituency in Moscow, for the great trust you
have shown me by nominating me your candidate for the
U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet. (Applause.)

The confidence of the people is a great and high honour
which must be justified by work for the good of the
country. I regard the fact that you have again nominated
me your candidate as a high estimate of my work and I
promise to devote all my energies in future to justifying
the confidence of the electors, the confidence of the people.
(Prolonged applause.)

Elections to the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet have become
a gala day for the entire Soviet people. In these days
Soviet men and women are summing up our country's
successes and achievements during the term of office of
the Supreme Soviet of the last convocation and are plan-
ning what we should do in the next few years.

The results of the work for the past four years are
well described in the message addressed by the Central
Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
to all electors and in other well-known documents.

We have a right to be proud of the achievements of our
socialist homeland. Gross output of Soviet industry has
increased by 55 per cent as compared with 1953, including

155

a 61 per cent increase in the output of means of produc-
tion and a 45 per cent increase in the output of consumer
goods.

It should be stressed that the development of industry
in the Soviet Union is proceeding at a rapid pace all the
time. The recent reorganization of the management of in-
dustry and building, bringing the management of in-
dustrial establishments and building sites directly to the
places where material wealth is produced, has played a
tremendous constructive part in improving the work of
our country's industry.

Here, for example, is what we expect from our industry
this year. Our plans, as you know, are not only being ful-
filled but also successfully overfulfilled. According to
figures of the Central Statistical Board, the two months'
plan for industrial output in January and February was
overfulfilled 3.5 per cent, with output increasing 11 per
cent as compared with the same period of last year. The
1958 plan calls for the production of 53,600,000 tons of
steel and 41,700,000 tons of rolled metal. These are ap-
proximately the quantities of steel and rolled metal that
were produced during the first 17 years of Soviet power,
that is to say, between 1918 and 1934. In order to produce
489,300,000 tons of coal, the figure planned for 1958, the
Soviet state required more than 16 years in its early days;
in order to extract the planned 112 million tons of oil more
than 13 years were needed, and to produce the planned
33,600,000 tons of cement about 19 years were needed. The
production of electric power in 1958 is planned at 231,000
million kilowatt-hours. This is approximately as much as
was generated in the first 21 years of Soviet rule, that is
to say, between 1918 and 1938.

Consider these figures, comrades! It now takes the
country's industry only one year to produce as much as
it could produce in 15-20 years in the past. This is a
qualitative leap which shows convincingly how our country
has changed. Today we can tackle any task, however great

156

and complicated it may be. Today, Russia, the Ukraine,
Byelorussia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, every republic in
Transcaucasia, Central Asia and the Baltic area— all the
fraternal republics— have become advanced, industrially
developed socialist republics. Every one of them can vie
with many capitalist states as regards the level of their
economic development. (Applause.)

How can we not rejoice, comrades, at the gigantic
achievements of our industry — that firm foundation of the
economic might and the defence capacity of the Soviet
state, the foundation for the constant improvement of the
well-being of the Soviet people. These achievements are
vivid evidence of the viability and invincibility of the new
social system — socialism. (Applause.)

The working people of Moscow, including those of the
Kalinin constituency, one of the biggest districts of our
capital, are contributing greatly to the strengthening of
the might of our Soviet country. It is gratifying to note
that the working people of Kalinin district fulfilled their
1957 state plan ahead of schedule — as early as December
14— and produced 300 million rubles' worth of goods
above target. (Applause.) Moscow's industry also fulfilled
its state plan ahead of schedule and last year produced
several thousand million rubles' worth of goods above
target.

Since the reorganization of the management of in-
dustry and building, Moscow industrial enterprises, like
those of the entire country, have considerably improved
their work. Moscow enterprises and Moscow's Economic
Council have drafted a long-term plan for the development
of the capital's industry in the 1959-65 period. This plan
makes provision for a 43.3 per cent increase in industrial
output as compared with the 1958 plan; over three-quart-
ers of this increase is to be achieved by higher labour
productivity at existing enterprises through the use of
more productive equipment and advanced technology, and
by expanding specialization and rational co-operation.

157

This is an excellent and honourable undertaking and
I would like, from the bottom of my heart, to wish the
working people of Moscow, who have more than once
been the initiators of patriotic deeds, success in accom-
plishing this important economic task. {Prolonged ap-
plause.)

Comrades, we are implementing a vast programme of
capital construction, the volume of which is expanding
every year. In the two years that have elapsed since the
20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union, 400,000 million rubles (in prices as of July 1, 1955)
have been invested in the national economy. And this is
more than the total investments made for the First and
Second Five-Year Plans and the three and a half pre-war
years of the Third Five-Year Plan.

What other state has ever built on such a scale? There
never has been such a country. Only for our socialist
country and its remarkable people — a people of fighters,
a people of pioneers — are such things possible. (Stormy
applause.)

The development of socialist industry, and first and
foremost of heavy industry, has ensured the socialist re-
construction of the entire national economy and the trans-
formation of our country's agriculture. In Soviet times,
agricultural output has increased considerably, though the
percentage of the population engaged in agriculture has
decreased in our country by nearly a half. In some
branches of cropping and livestock farming the output of
marketable produce is between three and six times greater
than that of pre-revolutionary Russia. Particularly great
progress has been made in the past four years, following
the well-known Party and Government decisions on agri-
culture.

With the development of virgin and disused lands, grain
production has risen substantially. The output of sugar-
beet, cotton, flax and other industrial crops is also in-
creasing.

158

Great successes have been achieved in the development
of animal husbandry. In the past four years the cattle
population alone has increased by 10,900,000, and there has
been a substantial increase in the output of livestock prod-
ucts. In this period meat production, including increases
in the herds, has risen by 38 per cent, with an increase
of nearly 80 per cent on the collective and state farms;
milk production for the country as a whole has risen by
50 per cent, with a more than 100 per cent increase on
the collective and state farms. The quantity of milk market-
ed has risen by 10,000,000 tons in these four years. Let
us recall, by way of comparison, that in 1913 milk pro-
duced for the market on the present territory of our coun-
try amounted to only 7,000,000 tons.

Our country's agriculture is developing at an excep-
tionally rapid pace. And we are confident that the patriot-
ic movement, launched on the initiative of the foremost
collective and state farms, to overtake the United States
within the next few years in per capita production of meat,
butter and milk, will meet with complete success. (Pro-
longed applause.)

The measures mapped out by the February Plenary
Meeting of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. for the
further consolidation of the collective-farm system and the
reorganization of the machine and tractor stations are
now being discussed throughout the country. The imple-
mentation of these truly revolutionary measures will
contribute to still greater progress in all branches of
socialist agriculture. The tremendous potentialities and
advantages of socialist farming and animal husbandry
will now be developed to an even greater extent.

As the country's economy develops the living standards
of the Soviet people steadily improve. The national income
is growing year by year. Since the last elections the Party
and the Government have carried out a number of major
measures to raise the standard of living of the working
people in our country. I will remind you of some of them.

159

A new law on state pensions has been passed; the wages
of the lower-paid categories of factory and office workers
have been raised; the working day has been shortened on
the eve of holidays and on Saturdays. The decision of the
Party and the Government on the introduction of a seven-
hour working day in general and a six-hour working day
on underground jobs in the coal and ore-mining industry
is being carried out. Social insurance benefits and expendi-
tures for free education, medical and other services for
the working people are increasing year by year.

Our country has abolished for all time such a scourge
of the working people as unemployment.

The past four years have been marked by new and out-
standing achievements of Soviet science and technology
and by a further cultural advance. Soviet scientists, engi-
neers, technicians and workers have produced the world's
finest jet and turboprop air liners, launched an atomic
ice-breaker, developed intercontinental ballistic missiles,
made important discoveries in electronics and successfully
launched the first artificial earth satellites in the world.

It was not long ago that some conceited representatives
of the Western world were spreading all kinds of fables
about science and technology in our country lagging
behind that of the United States. Now everyone sees that
socialism, which has freed man from the fetters of the
private property ideology and made the people masters
of their own destiny, creates boundless possibilities for
daring quests, discoveries, inventions and creative endeav-
our, for genuine progress in science, technology and
culture. (Prolonged applause.)

Today the whole world recognizes the great achieve-
ments of the Soviet Union. Soviet people are pleased to
hear of this recognition. But we must not be conceited
and, still less, be complacent and rest on our laurels. We
still have a lot to do and still have to work persistently
so as to accomplish the main economic task confronting
our country, so that in all spheres of life our country may

160

be in the forefront of mankind, may be abreast of the latest
achievements of science and technology. We are confident
that our achievements in this field, too, will grow and
multiply.

The Soviet Union now has everything for the successful
solution of the tasks of communist construction — a
powerful industry, a large-scale mechanized agriculture,
highly developed science and technology, untold natural
resources, and highly qualified cadres. Backed by our
achievements and utilizing the advantages of the social-
ist economic system, our country in the next few years
will make a further gigantic stride towards the great goal
—the building of communist society. (Stormy applause.)
From the materials of the jubilee session of the U.S.S.R.
Supreme Soviet devoted to the 40th anniversary of the
October Revolution, you know that the Party and the
Government have outlined a vast programme of economic
construction. This programme envisages a further rapid
expansion in the output of the metal, coal, electric power,
machine-building, chemical and other branches of industry
so that, within the next 15 years, not only to overtake but
also outstrip the biggest capitalist countries in per capita
output of the main items. This, comrades, is not an easy
task. But it is quite feasible and we are confident that it
will be successfully accomplished. (Prolonged applause.)
Our economic plans reflect the concern of the Commun-
ist Party and the Soviet Government for the well-being of
the Soviet people. The growth of the decisive branches of
economy in the next 15 years to approximately double or
treble the present level and a further rapid advance in
agriculture will make it possible to raise the living
standard of our people and more fully satisfy their ma-
terial and cultural requirements.

You know that the Party and the Government have
drawn up a big programme of housing construction in
order to end the housing shortage in our countrv within
the next 10 or 12 years. And this programme is being

161

translated into reality. Last year Soviet builders achieved
notable successes. In 1957, new housing with a total floor
space of more than 48 million square metres was complet-
ed and occupied. In addition, collective farmers and intel-
ligentsia in the countryside built 770,000 houses last year.
This means that in 1957 alone we built considerably more
housing than during the wihole of the Second Five-Year
Plan. (Applause.)

To give an idea of the real scale of housing construction
in the country I want to remind you that in 1954 we built
an average of seven flats per thousand of population,
whereas in 1957, the figure was 10.2 flats per thousand.
This volume of building is much higher than that of the
capitalist countries. According to official statistics, the
number of flats built in 1957 per thousand of population
was 6.7 in the United States, 5.9 in Britain, and 6.2 in
France.

Allow me to give some figures for housing construction
in Moscow. Whereas 4,477,000 square metres of housing
were made available for occupation from 1950 to 1953, the
figure for the period from 1954 to 1957 reached 8,320,000
square metres. Last year alone 71,800 families in Moscow
received flats in new, well-appointed buildings, most of
them going to workers' families. The long-term (1959-65)
plan for the development of the municipal economy of the
capital provides for the annual construction of housing
with a total floor space of about four million square
metres. (Applause.)

The task is to increase the rate of building and achieve
high quality. The proper distribution of housing is as-
suming exceptional importance. Although a great deal of
housing has been built in Moscow in recent years, the
number of people whose housing conditions ought to be
improved is still great. Why is that so? There are many
reasons, but one of them is the shortcomings in the distri-
bution of dwellings. (Applause.)

A procedure should be established whereby the lists of

162

people who are to receive flats should be carefully examined
and approved in advance, so that the people on these
lists know when they will get dwellings. (Applause.) It is
necessary to exercise strict supervision over the distribu-
tion of housing and to draw representatives of factories,
and offices into this work. (Applause.)

It is necessary, at long last, to put an end to the growth
of the population in the bigger cities due to the influx of
people from other areas. (Applause.) Some executives of
Moscow industrial establishments complain that they are
short of workers for laborious jobs, that it is hard to find
people to do "rough" work and therefore, you see, it is
necessary to permit the enlistment of labour from other
areas. But to present the question in that way means, as
it were, to divide people into two categories. It turns out
that people from other places should come to do the
"rough" work. But that is no way out of the situation. We
have to mechanize laborious jobs— that is the main thing.
(Prolonged applause.)

You have probably seen on more than one occasion how
men and women are engaged in chipping ice off the pave-
ments with crowbars. This is unproductive labour. Such
a sight really makes one uncomfortable. So much has been
done in our country to mechanize complicated production
processes, so many machines have been created to make
work easier, and the first artificial earth satellites have
been developed, but as for replacing the crowbar and
shovel with a machine— we have not yet got round to that.
(Animation in the hall. Applause.) What is it that we
lack? I think the main reason is that we pay too little
attention to such matters and regard them as trivial. But
is this trivial? No, it is such "trivial matters" that
constitute the work of many people.

Some foreign visitors who have been to the Soviet
Union write: "When you walk through Moscow in winter
you see many women working with crowbars and picks."
On this basis they claim that women are not held in esteem

163

in our country. There is hardly any need to prove what
great esteem is enjoyed by Soviet women, who, not just
in words, but in actual fact have equal rights with men
in all spheres of public and political life and in production.
(Applause.) Much has been done in our country to ease
the work of women, but this is still not enough. It is high
time to take up the mechanization of labour-consuming
processes in order to make work easier, particularly where
women are employed, and to make it more productive and
hence more remunerative. (Applause.)

We should also see to easing woman's work in the
household in every way. For this purpose, we should build
more nurseries, kindergartens, boarding-schools, dining
halls, laundries, and other cultural and service establish-
ments. We should do everything necessary in order that
cultural and service establishments, enterprises serving
the daily needs of the people, should satisfy more fully
and better the growing needs of the population. All these
are very important questions that concern the life of the
Soviet people. The solving of these questions must not be
brushed aside.

Labour productivity will continue to rise steadily in
connection with the development of technology, further
improvement of production, specialization and automa-
tion. Under these conditions there will be no shortage of
workers in the bigger cities and in some places there may
be redundancy. The workers who are released will be fully
able to find a use for their labour in other towns.

Many factory and office workers, especially young peo-
ple, have recently left the bigger cities for work in other
areas. Young patriots from Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev and
many other cities have responded enthusiastically to the
call of the Party and gone to develop new lands, to build
factories and other enterprises. We are confident that our
splendid Soviet youth will continue to take part even more
energetically in accomplishing the great tasks of building
communism. (Prolonged applause.)

164

Comrades, I, as a voter, shall also be voting and as a
voter I want to make some remarks about the shortcom-
ings in urban building.

Not so long ago much was being said and written about
tall buildings. It has been shown that tall buildings are
uneconomical and now they are no longer being built. But
what type of building should predominate in large-scale
urban construction? There are architects who consider
that it is necessary to erect many-storeyed residential
buildings for the sake of a town's better architectural ap-
pearance. They are mistaken. And this can easily be
proved by the example of the development of Leningrad,
Minsk and many other cities. I did not see the old Minsk,
but I have heard that it was an unprepossessing city. I
visited Minsk in January and saw that the city has been
well built and well planned. When you drive through the
main street of Minsk you get the impression that you are
on Nevsky Prospekt. What is important in developing a
city is not the height of its houses, but purposeful town-
planning, the ability to lay out the sections correctly and
to utilize relief and landscape effectively. All these factors
affect the cost of construction and should be taken into
consideration when determining the number of storeys for
dwelling-houses.

Isn't it time that the officials in charge of urban build-
ing, and especially those in charge of developing Moscow,
stopped arguing and arrived at a decision on the eco-
nomically desirable height for housing developments on a
mass scale?

The state is allocating vast sums for housing construc-
tion, and government bodies and building organizations
are duty-bound to take particular care that these funds
are used in the most effective way. At the same time
thought should be given to attracting the savings of those
sections of the population who have them and are in need
of better housing conditions. With that end in view, it is
evidently advisable to organize housing co-operatives and

165

to build with their aid. {Applause.) People who have
savings should be given an opportunity to build country
cottages or buy prefabricated houses. (Applause.) In this
way it will be possible to use spare funds in the posses-
sion of the population for housing construction.

In recent years the output of consumer goods has con-
siderably increased in our country— more textiles, cloth-
ing and other articles are being produced. People have
begun to eat better and dress better. But it must be ad-
mitted that we have difficulties in this connection which
must be overcome.

We are confronted with the important task of increas-
ing the output of footwear, textiles, clothing and other
consumer goods so as to meet the requirements of the
Soviet people for these goods in the next five to seven
years. How can this task be accomplished? Every year
agriculture is turning out more and more natural raw
materials for industry. In addition to using natural raw
materials, we must secure a considerable increase in the
production of textiles, footwear and other goods from
artificial fibre and high-quality substitutes for leather,
fur and other materials.

The Central Committee of the Party and the Government
plan to organize on an extensive scale the production of
artificial and synthetic fibres, plastics and other mate-
rials and goods made from them, for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of the population and the
needs of industry. By using synthetic materials, it is
planned to carry out large-scale measures to meet the
needs of the population in clothing, footwear and house-
hold goods. In addition to a considerable quantitative ex-
pansion in the production of textiles, it is planned to bring
about a substantial improvement in variety and quality.
It is necessary, by using synthetic materials, to achieve
a rapid increase in the output of all kinds of domestic
appliances and articles, and also high-quality furniture,
building materials and structural components.

166

The output of consumer goods will be sharply increased
in the next few years. It is also necessary to improve
the quality of these goods in every way and to manufacture
high-quality goods and attractive clothing and footwear.

Our people want to have not only all the essential
articles for domestic use and clothing; they also want to
dress well and attractively. And is our industry doing
everything possible in this field? No, not by a long way.

The measures that are being taken by the Party and the
Government will enable us to secure notable changes in
this sphere of economic activity too, not only to bring
about a still more rapid advance in light industry produc-
tion and in the output of consumer goods, but also to
bring about a radical improvement in the quality of the
goods designed to give colour to the life of the people.

Comrades, all the successes of our country have become
possible because we are living under socialism, when the
people are the complete masters of their country and take
a most active part in all spheres of political," economic
and cultural life.

The working people of our country are deeply interested
in electing as deputies the best and worthiest representa-
tives of the people. It is precisely for this reason that our
people regard the elections to the Supreme Soviet as their
own vital concern.! Almost the entire electorate takes part
in the voting.

There is nothing like that in capitalist countries. For
instance, during the last congressional elections in the
United States only 57.3 per cent of the people who had
reached voting age went to the polls, and in the previous
elections, in 1954, there were even fewer— 42.5 per cent.
Or take the elections to the House of Commons in Britain
At the last elections only 26,760,000 of the 34,852,000
electors voted. Don't these figures speak for themselves?
The voters in those countries see that no matter what re-
presentative of \he ruling classes they elect to Congress
or Parliament there will be no change in the state of

167

affairs. It makes no difference whether representatives of
the Republican or the Democratic Party sit in the United
States Congress, they will defend the interests of the rul-
ing classes— the capitalists, bankers, big landowners
and big businessmen. \

Take the present composition of the United States Con-
gress. Of the 531 congressmen, more than half are lawyers
and one quarter are employers and bankers. All of them
are representatives of Big Business. How many workers
are members of the United States Congress? There are no
real workers in the American Congress. Or let us see how
many ordinary farmers are members of the American
Congress. There are no farmers either. Seventeen and a
half million Negroes, or 10.4 per cent of the country's
entire population, are citizens of the United States. How
many Negroes have been elected to Congress? According
to American sources, there are three Negroes in the
United States Congress, or 0.56 per cent of the total
number of congressmen. Or let us see how many women
are members of the United States Congress. In all, 17
women have been elected to Congress, or only three per
cent.] Consequently the American Congress is actually
inaccessible to workers and farmers, to women and to
national minorities, who are placed in a position of
inequality.

Here you have the so-called "free world," in which the
workers, all the working people, are given the right to
vote for this or that representative of the ruling classes,
but have no right to take part in the activities of the
legislative bodies.

In this connection I would like to quote figures which
have been provided at my request by comrades in the
Central Electoral Commission. In our country 1,378 peo-
ple have been registered as candidates for the Soviet of
the Union and the Soviet of Nationalities. Among them
614 are workers and collective farmers directly engaged
in production, which makes up 44.6 per cent of all the

168

candidates. (Prolonged applause.) In all, more than 60
per cent of the candidates are workers and peasants by
social status. The others are representatives of the work-
ing intelligentsia. All the candidates are representatives
of the bloc of Communists and non-Party people. Of the
candidates nominated for the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet
26.4 per cent are women. (Applause.) It is not difficult to
see in these figures an expression of genuine Soviet
democracy.

The strength and merit of our socialist democracy con-
sists not only in the fact that the people themselves take
a direct part in determining the composition of the legis-
lative bodies, but also in the fact that all the activities
of our state bodies serve the interests of the people. Work-
ers, collective farmers, intellectuals — all the working peo-
ple of our country — are working to build communist society
under the banner of Marxism-Leninism, under the leader-
ship of the Communist Party, founded by the great Lenin.
All the activities of the Communist Party prove that it
has always served, and continues to serve, its people,
confidently leading them to the cherished goal— com-
munism. (Prolonged applause.)

It is socialist democracy which has liberated the Soviet
people from such "freedoms" as the right to elect their
exploiter and be unemployed, the right to die of starvation
or to be a wage slave of capital. That is not what our peo-
ple understand by freedom. In freedom we see the right
of the people to a life worthy of man, without exploiters
or exploitation; the right to genuine political equality;
the right to enjoy all the achievements of science and
culture. We understand freedom as the liberation of the
people from the horrors of unemployment and poverty,
from racial, national and social oppression. (Prolonged
applause.)

fThe defenders of capitalism like to picture the United
States as a country of prosperous enterprise, as a model
of bourgeois freedom, of bourgeois democracy. One could

169

cite many facts and figures showing what this "model"
democracy is really likeJ, I shall not quote such facts and
figures, because they are generally known. Allow me to
refer only to some statements from a recent speech by an
American trade-union leader, George Meany.

An emergency conference, called by the trade unions to
consider the economic situation in the United States,
opened on March 11. It was convened with the object of
drafting proposals to be submitted to the U.S. Admin-
istration and Congress which would make it possible to
restore the full volume of production and the economic
development of the United States. In his speech at the
conference George Meany, President of the American Fed-
eration of Labour Congress of Industrial Organizations,
dwelt on the question of unemployment, which has now
spread to all the main U.S. industries. According to the
figures cited by George /Vleany, there are now in the
United States 5,250,000 totally unemployed and over three
million partially unemployed. During last month alone the
number of unemploved in the United States increased by
750,000.

George Meany painted an unattractive picture of the
present economic situation in the United States. He said:

"More than 25 per cent of our production capacities are
idle. In some industries — for example, steel — production
capacities are utilized only 50 per cent. . . . Freight ship-
ments are 25 per cent below last year. Exports have
dropped by 25 per cent compared with March 1957.

"Here are the latest extremely important statistics: In
February 170,000 workers exhausted their unemployment
compensation," Meany pointed out. "Just think what this
means. Every week during February more than 40,000
workers exhausted all the unemployment compensation
to which they were entitled. By the middle of February,
7.5 per cent of all those with a right to receive unemploy-
ment compensation were getting it."

In his speech George Meany also gave other highly

170

characteristic data about the burdens the working people
of the United States are forced to bear.

"'Do you know," he said, "that according to the last
survey, in December 1956 13 million families were living
in houses not conforming to the accepted standards.
Thirteen million families! And the census showed that
these figures had remained practically unchanged since
1950.

"We are short of many thousands of classrooms,"
Meany said. "Many children of our trade-union members
today study in buildings which are not much better than
mere chicken coops, in old, neglected buildings with a
big fire risk . . . and then people wonder why we do not
have enough scientists, engineers and technicians to
equal the Soviet Union.

"We must get America back to work. . . ." George
Meany exclaims. "This is the only possible answer to the
economic crisis that is confronting our country today."*

Those are some of the facts given by an American trade-
union leader.

\ A small handful of millionaires and billionaires are
making fabulous profits out of the sufferings and priva-
tions of the people, while the millions of the working
masses are compelled for months and years to look in
vain for jobs and do not possess the means to feed their
children and their aged fathers and mothers. At the same
time the American Government is spending thousands of
millions of dollars on building military bases.

The arms drive is profitable for the monopolists. They
do not worry about the urgent needs of the people. Such
is the nature, such is the essence of capitalism. Enrich-
ment, aggrandizement, maximum profits— that is what the
rulers of the capitalist countries strive for. Such is the
motive force of capitalist society. That is what capitalist
prosperity looks like in practice! That is what capitalist
freedom means!

* The above quotations are retranslated from the Russian.— Ed.

171

We, of course, do not rejoice over the fact that un-
employment, a real scourge for the working people, is
growing in the United States), The older generation in our
country remember how, before the Revolution, many
hundreds of thousands of working-class families, suffered
hunger and poverty owing to unemployment. \Unemploy-
ment is an inevitable concomitant of capitalism the ulcers
of which were profoundly revealed by Marx and Lenin.
They showed the working class and all the working peo-
ple the road to liberation from the fetters of capitalism,
the road for gaining power, the road to socialism.

And if one is to consider which world — the socialist or
the capitalist — has a real right to call itself free, then
there can be no two opinions on this matter — only so-
cialism brings mankind real, and not fictitious, freedom.
And the future belongs precisely to this world. (Stormy
applause.)

Comrades, allow me to dwell now on some aspects of
the international situation.

We can be satisfied with the international position of
the Soviet Union. In the past four years, far from losing
any friends abroad, we have strengthened still more our
friendship with them and have acquired new friends. The
international prestige of the Soviet Union has grown
immeasurably. The Soviet Union's ties with many peoples
of the world have been broadened and strengthened.

As a result of the remarkable successes achieved by the
peoples of the Soviet Union and of all the socialist
countries, as a result of their co-operation and mutual
assistance, the socialist camp has grown immeasurably
stronger, the world socialist system has been consolidated
and has become a mighty force.

Great successes in building socialism have been
achieved in recent years by the People's Democracies.

The imperialists have more than once tried to break the
unity and solidarity of the socialist camp, resorting to
armed provocations and subversion, to the organization of

172

counter-revolutionary plots and uprisings, as was the case
in Hungary in the autumn of 1956. They are trying at all
costs to drive a wedge between the socialist countries and
to set them at loggerheads.

But the peoples of the socialist countries have re-
pulsed, and will continue to repulse, the forces of reac-
tion. The working people of these countries are well
aware that the social gains of the working people and
their national independence can be ensured only if all the
countries of socialism are united and closely knit together.
That is why the further strengthening of the might of the
socialist camp and its defence against the encroachments
of the imperialists are the vital concern of all the peoples
of the socialist countries. {Prolonged applause.)

The community of socialist countries is not a closed one,
isolated from the non-socialist states and their peoples.
Our country has strengthened its friendly ties with India,
Indonesia, Burma, the United Arab Republic, and other
Asian and African states whose peoples have cast off the
colonial yoke and are now working to consolidate the in-
dependence of their young states.

The past four years have been years in which the Soviet
Union, together with the other peaceful countries, has
made persistent efforts to ease international tension, ter-
minate the arms race and prevent a new war.

The most burning, vital question for all mankind today
is the question of peace or war. Wars between states have
always caused many casualties and much destruction.
But a future war, if, contrary to the will of the peoples, it
is unleashed, threatens to be the most destructive of all
wars — a nuclear war. Apart from direct destruction, the
use of nuclear weapons will contaminate the air by radio-
active fall-out, and this can lead to the destruction of
practically all life, especially in countries with densely
populated, small territories. There, literally everything can
be swept from the face of the earth.

It is precisely for this reason that in our day the strug-

173

gle to preserve peace and prevent a new war has become
not only the primary, vital concern of those who may be
subjected to attack by the imperialists, but also the imme-
diate concern of the people in all countries, regardless of
where they may live — in Europe or Asia, America or
Africa, irrespective of their class position, religious beliefs
or the colour of their skin — it is literally the concern of
everyone living on Earth.

The task is to prevent a new war and to ensure peace
throughout the world. But this needs more than just
appeals, more than the desire alone. Peace must be defend-
ed in stubborn struggle against the forces that are trying
to unleash a new war.

To live without wars, without fear for the morrow,
without slavery and poverty, free from the exploitation of
some countries by others, free from social injustices — that
is what the best minds of mankind and the working people
of the whole world have dreamed of for centuries. But
only today can these noble dreams become clothed with
reality. This has become possible as a result of the
strengthened might of the Soviet Union and the entire
world socialist system, that have inaugurated a new
epoch in the history of mankind — the epoch of real socia-
list freedom and the triumph of reason.

Today the decisive requirement for mankind's advance
along the path of progress is peace, the prevention of those
terrible disasters that a new war would bring.

The Communist Party and the Soviet Government, for
whom there is nothing greater than the fulfilment of the
aspirations of the people, have done, and are doing, every-
thing necessary to prevent a new war and to direct the de-
velopment of international relations along the lines of
preserving a stable peace. They are doing everything pos-
sible to achieve peace and equitable relations and friend-
ship among all peoples in deeds and not in words.

In the four years that have elapsed since the last elec-
tions to the Supreme Soviet our Party and the Soviet Gov-

174

ernment have exerted tremendous efforts to relieve in-
ternational tension.

Let me remind you of some of the most important steps
in foreign policy taken by the Soviet Union. We played an
active part in stopping the wars in Korea and Viet-Nam;
on the initiative of the Soviet Union the conflict with
Yugoslavia was ended and relations were normalized;
thanks to the active policy of the Soviet Union, a peace
treaty was concluded with Austria; we withdrew our
troops from Port Arthur and Dalny and voluntarily gave
up the military base in Finland; relations have been nor-
malized with the Federal Republic of Germany and with
Japan.

Without waiting for a general agreement on disarma-
ment to be reached, the Soviet Union has repeatedly car-
ried out unilateral reductions of its own Armed Forces —
640,000 in 1955; 1,200,000 in 1956-57— and today it is
completing another reduction by an additional 300,000
men. Corresponding reductions have been carried out by
our country in armaments, military equipment and mili-
tary allocations for defence purposes.

All honest people see that such measures can be car-
ried out only by a state which wants peace and not war,
the normalization and not the worsening of the interna-
tional situation. Some people accuse us of aggressive in-
tentions. If that were really so, we should not, under any
circumstances, have yielded our advantageous positions
in Austria, which were won in fierce struggle against fas-
cist Germany. But we did conclude peace with Austria and
withdraw our troops from that country. What "conqueror"
would have done that? The Soviet Union strove for such a
solution of the Austrian problem because it really has the
interests of peace at heart and does not interfere in the
affairs of other countries, because it is fully resolved to
achieve peaceful co-existence with all countries.
(Applause.)

Or take the question of the military base in Finland.

175

What state, if it had aggressive intentions, would volunta-
rily relinquish its rights to military bases provided for by
international treaty?

Of course, some Western politicians, who are accustomed
to measuring everything with their own yardstick, can-
not understand this. But this is well understood by all
honest people.

The Soviet Union stands for beneficial good-neighbourly
relations with all countries without exception. We are
ready to establish such relations with all states that desire
it on the basis of reciprocity. (Applause.)

We have approached Turkey with good intentions but,
unfortunately, have not so far met with the necessary un-
derstanding on her part. Nevertheless, notwithstanding
unfriendly, anti-Soviet speeches by some political leaders
of Turkey, our relations with that country are no longer
what they were four years ago. We cannot but mention
some signs and tendencies towards an improvement in
relations between our countries. We shall spare no effort
and shall continue our peaceful policy in the hope that the
Turkish people and the Government of Turkey will under-
stand our good and sincere intentions. In the interests of
preserving peace for our peoples it is necessary that our
countries, which are close neighbours with common fron-
tiers by land and sea, should be friends, not enemies. This
will be of benefit to world peace. (Applause.)

Another of our neighbours in the South is Iran. During
the stay of the Shah of Iran in the U.S.S.R. we had many
useful conversations with him. Frontier questions in dis-
pute for hundreds of years have now been settled to mu-
tual satisfaction. Today we are negotiating with Iran on
some economic questions: the building of dams, irrigation,
the utilization of frontier rivers in the interests of both our
countries. The satisfactory solution of these problems will
be beneficial for the development of good-neighbourly re-
lations between our countries. We have told the Govern-
ment of Iran that the Soviet Union did not have, and does

176

not have, any unfriendly intentions with regard to Iran.
We think that the Iranian Government has become con-
vinced of this. (Applause.)

About our relations with Afghanistan we can say that
in recent years they have become still better and sounder
than before, and we wish that they continue to de-
velop in a spirit of friendship, mutual understanding and
joint concern for the preservation of peace. (Applause.)

As has already been pointed out, in recent years friendly
relations with the Indonesian Republic have taken shape.
Soviet men and women cannot but pay attention to the
imperialist machinations in Indonesia. Why are the im-
perialists trying to interfere in the internal affairs of that
country? And why are they organizing plots there? This
must not be permitted. The Indonesian people should
themselves arrange their life at their own discretion, and
no one has any right to impose upon them his will or a
way of life they do not want.

One cannot but express regret at the fact that our rela-
tions with Pakistan and some other Asian countries that
have been drawn by the imperialists into the Baghdad
Pact and SEATO, have failed to improve for reasons that
do not depend on the Soviet Union.

Good-neighbourly relations are developing between the
Soviet Union and Finland, and the other Scandinavian
countries. We appreciate the neutrality of Sweden, who
wants to keep out of military blocs. The Soviet Union re-
spects the step in foreign policy taken by the Norwegian
Government, headed by Mr. Gerhardsen, and the Danish
Government, headed by Mr. Hansen, who have displayed
an awareness of their duty and a sense of responsibility
for the fate of their countries by opposing the basing of
atomic and rocket weapons on their territories. (Applause.)
Following the conclusion of the State Treaty, our rela-
tions with neutral Austria, too, have become normal and
are developing in the spirit of good-neighbourliness.
There are great opportunities for better relations with

177

Italy and Greece. The Soviet people know that the Italian
and Greek peoples entertain great sympathy and respect
for our country. Similar sentiments of friendship, respect
and sympathy are entertained by the Soviet people for the
Italian people and the people of Greece. These mutual sen-
timents have deep-rooted traditions which evolved in past
centuries and grew strong in the common struggle against
fascism. (Applause.)

We cannot, of course, fail to take into account the fact
that influential spokesmen of these two countries pay
more heed to the voice of NATO generals than to the voice
of their peoples, and have already, judging by newspaper
reports, begun to prepare for the construction of American
rocket bases in their countries. But we believe in the com-
mon sense of the Italians and the Greeks. At all events, on
our part there is good will and readiness to establish
friendly relations with these states. It is now, therefore,
up to them.

We can note with satisfaction that there are tangible
signs of a certain improvement in the relations between
the Soviet Union and the Latin American countries. We
are well aware of what is hindering such an improvement
even now. But it is not our fault that there are still no
broad and mutually advantageous relations between the
Soviet Union and these countries. This is being hindered
in every way by certain imperialist circles who look upon
Latin America as their private domain and who prevent
industrialization in these countries and keep them in the
position of raw material appendages.

The conscience of mankind cannot tolerate the situation
that has developed in Algeria. A bloody war is going on
there and the Arab population is being exterminated.
Though the Algerian question has been discussed by the
United Nations, the complaints of the Algerian people have
remained unheeded. The governments of the imperialist
states have turned their backs on the tears of millions of
Algerians, on the frightful tragedy they are living through.

178

It is time to put an end to this bloodshed and to fa-
cilitate an agreement on tne Algerian problem in accord-
ance with the interests of the Algerian population and tak-
ing into consideration the interests of France. Cannot the
French ruling circles realize that if they do not seek, do
not want to seek, a peaceful solution to the Algerian prob-
lem, they run the risk of leading their country into an
even greater fiasco than was the case in Indo-China?

It is time for the colonialists to realize that each people
can and should be the complete master of its own destiny.
(Stormy applause.)

Our policy with regard to other countries, irrespective
of whether they are large or small, is clear. We do not in-
terfere in their internal affairs, for we consider that the
political system, the social order, the ideology, or in other
words everything that we call the way of life, is the inter-
nal, inalienable right of the people of each country. Every
nation knows itself how best it should live at a particular
time, what views to adhere to, what religion to follow, and
nobody, no state, has the right to impose upon other coun-
tries and peoples its own way of life. This is the policy
bequeathed to us by Lenin, we have been pursuing it un-
swervingly and shall continue to do so. (Prolonged ap-
plause.)

We are ready to establish good, friendly relations with
all states. Who can deny that this is the only practicable
policy, in keeping with the interests of all countries?

I would like to dwell briefly on the problem of relations
between the U.S.S.R. and such Western states as France,
Britain and the United States, which together with the
Soviet Union, the Chinese People's Republic and India,
bear great responsibility for maintaining universal peace
and safeguarding the security of the nations.

We were allies of Britain, France and the United States
during the Second World War and we fought together
against Hitler Germany. We respect the peoples of those
countries and have a high opinion of the great contribu-

179

tion they have made to the development of world science,
technology and culture. Soviet men and women are very
well aware that the peoples of those countries, too, are
striving for peace. The Soviet Union has exerted, and will
continue to exert, every effort to achieve understanding
and establish friendly relations with the peoples of those
countries and their governments.

The Communist Party and the Soviet Government pro-
ceed from the premise that under present conditions all
governments who rightly understand their responsibility
for the destiny of the world must rise above ideological
differences. In international affairs, in settling existing dis-
putes, they should be guided, not by what divides the world
today, but by what brings countries closer together in their
joint effort to preserve peace.

The only possible foundation for relations between states
with different social systems are the well-known Five Prin-
ciples: mutual respect for territorial integrity and sover-
eignty; non-aggression; non-interference in one another's
internal affairs for economic, political or ideological rea-
sons; equality and mutual benefit; peaceful co-existence.
The principles of peaceful co-existence, recently
approved by the United Nations, should actually be made
the corner-stone of relations between all states. Unfortun-
ately, such countries as the United States, Britain and
France so far show no desire to be guided by these princi-
ples in their relations with other countries. And this circum-
stance has left its mark on the whole of the present situa-
tion. It prevents the achieving of a detente and the crea-
tion of confidence. The result is that the arms race conti-
nues; the cold war that is poisoning the international
atmosphere is still maintained; the number of controversial
international issues is hardly any less, and the danger of
war has not been removed. Such a prospect, however,
does not suit the peoples at all.

The peoples are tired of the cold war. Fear of the possi-
bility of a devastating war is preventing them from work-

180

ing normally. People cannot live in tranquility if their
efforts are senselessly wasted on the production of instru-
ments of annihilation. People are not secure as long as
there is the possibility that imperialist provocateurs of
some kind will risk starting war. It will not take much in
the present tense conditions and with the existing sus-
picions for the "accidental" appearance of a foreign plane,
for a bomb "accidentally" dropped by it, to cause a mili-
tary conflict which may turn into a general war. Strange
as it may seem, there are some persons in official positions
in the United States and Britain who are trying to prove
that flights of bombers carrying hydrogen bombs are nec-
essary. The more planes with hydrogen weapons are flying
in the air, the less the room that is left for the doves of
peace and the more for the machinations of the demon
of war.

The level of armaments in some countries is now at such
a stage that a moment is evidently coming — perhaps it
has already come — when these countries themselves, irre-
spective of whether an agreement on discontinuing the
manufacture of atom and hydrogen bombs is reached or
not, will have to say: "Enough!"

In the past obsolete weapons and military equipment
were replaced as new models were developed, but today,
evidently, a stage has been reached in which it is difficult
to invent a more powerful weapon than the hydrogen bomb,
since there are no limits to its power. It is not by chance
that scientists— so far timidly, it is true— are expressing
the opinion that if the accumulated stockpiles of nuclear
weapons are exploded, this can poison the atmosphere of
the entire world.

The appalling consequences of nuclear weapons for all
mankind are realized not only by scientists but also by the
broadest sections of the public, by hundreds of millions
of ordinary people throughout the world. They are increas-
ingly demanding of the governments, and above all of the
governments of the countries possessing nuclear weapons,

181

that an end be put to the tests of these weapons. Common
sense suggests to the people the only way out of the dead-
lock on the disarmament problem. And this way out lies
in the complete prohibition of nuclear weapons.

We are apparently approaching a time when govern-
ments, if they want to retain their bonds with the people,
will no longer be able to turn a deaf ear to this universal
demand of our times, and, even if they do not reach an
agreement among themselves, they will be compelled uni-
laterally to discontinue the production of atomic and
hydrogen weapons.

The Soviet Union is doing everything in its power to
remove the present international tension and to ensure
that the people all over the world can breathe freely and
live in peace, enjoying the fruits of their labour. The mat-
ter is complicated by the fact that the other side does not
desire this and is striving to preserve and expand its mili-
tary blocs Yet, as is well known, the capitalist countries
form such blocs not for peace but for war.

The Soviet Union always has been and is against war
as an instrument of international policy and against di-
viding the world into military blocs. We see the way to
an easing of international tension not in setting up new
military groupings and preserving existing ones, not in
the arms race and in stockpiling more and more deadly
weapons for the extermination of human beings.

What, indeed, does the stubborn unwillingness of cer-
tain Western circles to agree to a relaxation of interna-
tional tension signify? What is the meaning of their policy
of building up military alliances?

Nothing else but preparations for a new war. Already
at the present time the stockpiling of instruments of anni-
hilation is doing grave damage to the interests of the
peoples. It is leading to the extraction of more and more
taxes from the people, to the impoverishment of their mate-
rial, cultural and spiritual lives, to the subordination of
the life of whole nations to the interests of war prepara-

182

tions. The peoples have grown tired of this policy. Their
indignation is mounting and social conflicts are becoming
sharper. In order to suppress the people's discontent, to
fight the workers' movement and resolve their internal
contradictions, the ruling circles of the imperialist coun-
tries are seeking a way out in military adventures.

We Communists are realists in our policies and we say
that peace not only should, but can be preserved. If the
peoples acquire a deep understanding of the frightful
danger involved in a new world war and the sufferings it
can bring to mankind, they will intensify their struggle
for peace and will frustrate the machinations of the war-
mongers. We are decidedly in favour of abolishing the cold
war, we are for the greatest possible development of trade
relations and cultural ties with all countries, for a relaxa-
tion of international tension. In short, we stand for peace-
ful co-existence, for peaceful competition between all
states. (Applause.)

It is precisely with this aim in view that the Soviet
Government has addressed to the Governments of the
Great Powers, and also to the governments of most coun-
tries of the world, a proposal for a meeting of representa-
tives of states at the highest level. At such a meeting the
representatives of the parties concerned could exchange
views on the ways of abolishing the cold war and take the
first steps towards solving urgent international problems,
the settlement of which is awaited and persistently de-
manded by the broad masses of the people.

Of course, not all issues can be solved now. The chief
task, however, is to make a good beginning for easing in-
ternational tension. Just as the farmer plants the seed in
tilled soil and expects good shoots, a rich harvest, so we
can lay the foundation for a better understanding and the
solution of major international problems. WTe can and
should promote the growth and strengthening of the tree
of friendship and peace, the development of new, healthy
relations between peoples, the consolidation of peaceful co-

183

existence, the exclusion of the use of force in solving out-
standing issues, observance of the United Nations' prin-
ciples, prevention of any infringement of the interests of
countries and interference in the internal affairs of other
states.

In our opinion, the pressing international questions at
the present stage are:

immediate discontinuation of atomic and hydrogen
weapons tests;

renunciation by the U.S.S.R., the United States and
Britain of the use of nuclear weapons;

the establishment of an atom-free zone in Central Eu-
rope;

conclusion of a non-aggression agreement between the
member-states of the North Atlantic bloc and the Warsaw
Treaty Organization;

reduction of the numerical strength of foreign forces on
the territory of Germany and other European states;

elaboration of an agreement on questions concerning
the prevention of sudden attack;

ways of easing tension in the Middle East;

measures for the expansion of international trade re-
lations;

the cessation of war propaganda.

Who can assert that only the Soviet Union is interested
in settling these questions, or that they are of no concern
to the peoples of other countries, including the United
States, Britain and France? It is life itself that has raised
and prepared these questions.

In conformity with the wishes of the United States Gov-
ernment, we are also ready to discuss such questions as:

prohibition of the use of outer space for military pur-
poses and the dismantling of military bases on foreign
territories;

conclusion of a German peace treaty;

development of ties and contacts between countries.

Thus, the draft agenda for a summit conference proposed

by us not only takes into account questions raised by
our side but also includes proposals by the United States
which can be discussed to advantage, striving to improve
the international situation and not to worsen it.

We have already said that it is possible and necessary
to achieve a settlement also of the questions put forward
in the past by President Eisenhower, such as the pooling
of efforts to combat malaria and cancer, and the implemen-
tation of other measures of a similar nature. On these
questions opinions can be exchanged at any level and, if
it is found necessary, instruction can be given to the ap-
propriate agencies to work on the solution of these prob-
lems. We even think that the respective agencies of both
sides can immediately undertake the solution of these
problems.

It is well known that we have also agreed to a Foreign
Ministers' meeting, suggesting that it be held in April. We
have given two variants of the possible composition of its
participants. In our opinion it is time to discuss concretely
questions of preparing and calling both a Ministers'
meeting and a summit conference.

In the reply aide-memoire of the U.S. State Department
and in the message of the President of the United States,
the entire question of a summit meeting has been rele-
gated to the starting-point again. These documents say
nothing about the substance of our proposals, but again
put forward the German question and the question of the
situation in the East European countries.

We cannot hide our disappointment with regard to the
attitude adopted by the Government of the United States.
It was a disappointment not only for us, by the way, but
also for the peace forces in every country.

This has been well and convincingly expressed by the
President of the Czechoslovak Republic, Comrade Novotny,
in the recent interview he gave correspondents of the
Czechoslovak News Agency and the newspaper Rude
Pravo,

185

"I cannot conceive that any East European country
could agree to a discussion on such a question," Comrade
Novotny stressed. "Czechoslovakia at any rate rejects it
categorically. Our affairs were discussed without us in
Munich by Hitler. But 1958 is not 1938." (Prolonged
applause.)

Indeed, the very fact of the inclusion of the so-called
question of the situation in the East European countries
in the message of the President of the United States is un-
heard of in relations between states. Just think, how can
a state which maintains normal diplomatic relations with
other countries and has its diplomatic representatives in
those countries, while those countries have their Embas-
sies in Washington and are members of the United Na-
tions— how can such a state raise with third states the
question of the state structure of those countries? Has any-
one given this state authority for this? If it has such
authority, let it produce it. This is indeed a flagrant breach
of elementary rules in relations between states.

We have already repeatedly and resolutely declared
that we will not discuss this question. And not because
we are so "intransigent," as some people in the Western
countries would like to make us out to be; and not because
we reject out of hand the proposals of the United States,
as they allege. The very raising of this question is in-
sulting to those countries which the President of the
United States has in mind, and is contrary to common
sense. (Stormy applause.)

If anyone wants to discuss the question of the social
system of certain socialist countries, why not name such a
country as the Soviet Union? Why are the socialist coun-
tries of Asia, the Chinese People's Republic, for example,
excluded? True, the United States does not recognize China,
but China will not cease to exist or suffer any harm be-
cause of this. The great People's China exists — and not
only exists, but is developing successfully. (Stormy ap-
plause.)

186

As we have already had occasion to say, the question
of the socialist regime has been subjected to a "discus-
sion," even weapons being used. On this question the
peoples of the Soviet Union conducted "negotiations,"
with the United States as well, when, following the Octo-
ber Revolution, the interventionists invaded our territory
in order to abolish the gains of October, destroy Soviet
power and restore the capitalist regime. The dispute was
already then decided in favour of socialism. (Stormy ap-
plause.) Why, then, raise such questions again? We reject
them, and not only reject them, but declare that in the
event of any new attempt from outside to change by force
the way of life in socialist countries, we shall not be mere
onlookers and shall not leave our friends in the lurch.
(Stormy applause.) We are true to our obligations and
our international duty and we should not like to see any-
one try our patience again. (Prolonged applause.)

Why, we for our part, too, can put forward similar
questions, namely: how long will capitalism exist in the
West European countries? Isn't it time for that system to
give way to the more progressive, socialist system? (Pro-
longed applause.) Hasn't enough blood been shed in wars
instigated by imperialist states? This is a reasonable ques-
tion, not only from our point of view, but also from the
standpoint of all mankind. (Applause.) But we are real-
ists. How can we raise this question with representatives
of capitalist countries, with whom we intend to conduct
negotiations on the abolition of the cold war and the
guarantee of peaceful co-existence after these talks? One
doesn't have to possess a fertile imagination to realize
that such a question cannot be a subject for discussion,
either at the highest or at the lowest level. We consider
it absurd to raise such questions, and we do not raise
them. (Applause.)

We tell our Western partners: if you really want to
abolish the cold war, of which the people are sick and
tired, and ensure the peaceful co-existence of countries,

187

the way to bringing closer together the positions on dis-
puted questions should not be made harder. With two so-
cial systems in existence, there can be no other policy than
that of reasonable compromise, which does not affect in-
ternal regimes, does not place one country or another in
a position of advantage, and does not infringe on the se-
curity of the states concerned.

I also want to make a few remarks about the so-called
German question. At one time we made persistent efforts
to settle this question in complete conformity with the Cri-
mean and Potsdam declarations. It is not our fault that
this was not achieved. The Western Powers were interested
in reviving German militarism instead of creating a
united, democratic and peaceful Germany.

The situation has radically changed since then. Two
sovereign German states have been formed and they them-
selves have to find the way to a rapprochement. We main-
tain normal diplomatic relations with these two states —
the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic
of Germany — and we refuse to interfere in their internal
affairs.

If there is really a desire to do something useful in this
sphere, the question of concluding a peace treaty with
Germany should be discussed. If the Western Powers are
against that, we shall not insist on including it in the
agenda. But we cannot agree to some people tying
up European security with the German question, as is
done in the State Department's aide-memoire. Such a tie-
up had its history, but those days are gone.

The main thing now is to ensure European security. But
a solution to this important problem in the way proposed
by the United States and some other Western countries
will by no means strengthen peace in Europe and, conse-
quently, will not strengthen world peace either. Need it
be said that this will bring neither a more stable peace
nor security to the Germans, whether in West Germany
or in East Germany.

The German problem is an important one for the Ger-
man nation. But we must proceed from the interests of en-
suring the security of all the European peoples, including
the German people. Let us, therefore, begin by settling the
problem which concerns all Europe and the entire world,
and this will facilitate the solution of the German problem
as well.

When Europe stops being a theatre for military compe-
tition between the two blocs, when foreign troops go back
home, when the threat of war is eliminated, that is to say,
when European security is ensured and tension has been
eased, all the peoples of Europe, and for that matter not
only of Europe, will only gain by that. Would not all this
help the German people, who now live in two states with
different social conditions, to find a way to contact, to
rapprochement and to the solution of the issues that cause
anxiety to the populations of both those states? Any other
way will lead, not to the solution of the German question,
but to a worsening of the situation and even to war.

So if the approach to the present international situation
is unbiased, it is absolutely clear who is for peace and
friendship among the peoples and who aims at sharpening
the international situation.

The Soviet Union, the Chinese People's Republic, all
the socialist countries are seeking to ease international
tension and strengthen confidence among states; they are
seeking to stop the arms race, to ban nuclear weapons
and to achieve a major settlement of the disarmament
problem in general.

Our proposal for a summit conference is fresh proof of
the Soviet Union's policy of peace.

As for the Western Powers, and in the first place the
United States, in words they declare their allegiance to
peace, but in fact they are preventing the ending of inter-
national tension and the establishment of confidence
among states. The main thing today is that the peoples
must not let themselves be fooled by the empty talk of

189

some Western statesmen about peace — talk which is not
backed up by concrete deeds.

Let us take, for instance, what the U.S. Secretary of
State told a news conference on March 4. The whole of his
statement, though well-seasoned with phrases about love
of peace, was chiefly aimed at worsening relations and
stirring up polemics in order thereby to complicate a sum-
mit meeting. We do not want to take this road.

The Soviet Union has stood, and continues to stand for
peaceful co-existence, not because it is weak or because it
fears threats. If we were not weak before, then today, all
the more so, we have everything necessary to protect the
peaceful labour of the Soviet people and to smash any
aggressor, should he try to attack our country. (Stormy
applause.) We are sure that the great ideas of communism
will triumph, but we have never imposed upon other
countries by force of arms the socialist way of life and our
ideology, nor do we intend to do so. The Soviet people
want to live in peace and friendship with all other peoples.

On the eve of the Supreme Soviet elections we who have
leading positions in the Communist Party and the Soviet
state, whom the people have put at the helm of the coun-
try, declare that we shall spare no effort and shall con-
tinue to work perseveringly to accomplish the noble tasks
of strengthening peace and preventing another war. (Pro-
longed applause.)

Comrades, our elections are taking place in an atmos-
phere of tremendous patriotic enthusiasm, of the further
strengthening of the alliance between the workers and the
peasants. The Soviet people firmly believe that under the
leadership of their Communist Party they will achieve
further successes in attaining their cherished goal — the
building of communism. (Stormy applause.)

The moral and political unity of Soviet society and the
friendship between the peoples of our country are grow-

190

ing and becoming stronger. (Applause.) Our peoples are
still more closely rallying around the Communist Party,
which has always considered and continues to consider its
aim to be that of faithfully serving the people and pro-
tecting their vital interests. This is convincingly borne out
by the entire activity of our Party. (Prolonged applause.)
The people have always regarded the Bolshevik Party as
their true defender, expressing their interests. They have
rallied round the Party and filled its ranks with their best
sons and daughters. So it was half a century ago, when a
handful of convinced Bolshevik Leninists fought in the
grim conditions of tsarist autocracy for the liberation of
the working people from the fetters of capitalism. So it is
today, when the Communist Party of the Soviet Union has
grown into a mighty army of advanced builders of com-
munism. (Stormy applause.)

The lackeys of imperialism babble allegations to the
effect that the Communists keep themselves in power by
force, that the peoples of the Soviet Union and of the so-
cialist countries are only waiting to free themselves from
the "yoke" of the Communists. But everybody knows what
these fabrications are worth! The recent claimants to
world domination— the Nazi-s— babbled about the same
things when they launched their predatory attack upon
our country. By their own experience, however, they
learned that the Soviet people and the Communist Party
are a united and truly invincible force. (Stormy applause.)

The Communist Party, which is the vanguard, the
advanced section of the people, is of the flesh and blood
of the people.

In these elections to the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet, as in
previous election campaigns, our Party is in close
alliance with non-Party people. This means that the Com-
munists will cast their votes both for Party and non-Party
candidates, while the non-Party people will vote both for
non-Party and Communist candidates. (Prolonged ap-
plause.) There is no doubt that the entire electorate will

191

cast their votes unanimously for the candidates of the bloc
of Communists and non-Party people and thereby again
demonstrate their unbreakable unity and solidarity with
the Communist Party and the Soviet Government. (Stormy
applause.)

Long live our mighty socialist homeland! (Prolonged,
stormy applause.)

Long live the Communist Party of the Soviet Union — the
inspirer and organizer of all the victories of the Soviet
people! (Prolonged, stormy applause.)

Glory to the Soviet people — the great builder of com-
munism! (Prolonged, stormy applause. All rise.)

INTERVIEW GIVEN TO CORRESPONDENT
OF LE FIGARO

March 19, 1958

On March 19, N. S. Khrushchov received M. Serge Grous-
sard, correspondent of the French newspaper Le Figaro,
at the latter's request, and had a talk with him.

Below we publish M. Groussard's questions and N. S.
Khrushchov's replies.

Groussard: I have been greatly impressed by the tall
buildings and the new blocks which are going up in
Moscow. It seems to me you are also exerting great
efforts in the countryside, where the collective farms now
have large numbers of up-to-date machines.

Khrushchov: You rightly understand our efforts. We
rejoice in the successes achieved by our country and re-
joice in the favourable prospects for the country's further
development.

Groussard: I believe that at the present time the main
task of the Soviet Union is of an economic character. It
is to overtake and then surpass the most developed capital-
ist countries in production per head of population.

Khrushchov: You have a correct understanding of the
main economic task confronting us. To overtake and then
outstrip the economically most developed countries in per
capita output— that is the chief task of the Soviet people
and our Party. In 1917, when the working class, the work-
ing people of Russia, under the leadership of our Party and

193

headed by Lenin, carried through the socialist revolution,
Russia was one of the most backward of the capitalist
countries. The Soviet people undertook to transform their
country. Even very bold people in the West did not believe
in Lenin's great plans and projects. You probably remem-
ber the pronouncements of H. G. Wells, the famous British
writer, who after visiting Soviet Russia and speaking with
Lenin, in his book Russia in the Shadows called Lenin a
great dreamer — "the dreamer in the Kremlin."

Reality, however, corrected H. G. Wells, who was a very
great writer but a poor politician. He did not have suffi-
cient imagination to see what Lenin saw when he spoke
about our country's future.

The advantages of the socialist over the capitalist
system were demonstrated already at the early stages of
the Soviet Union's development — the socialist system
opens up before all ordinary people, the whole nation, the
greatest opportunities to develop and apply their abilities
and ensures a steady rise in their material and cultural
standards; under socialism the people themselves are the
supreme masters of their country. Today the Soviet people
are successfully accomplishing a great task — that of over-
taking and outstripping in the briefest historical period the
most developed capitalist countries, including the United
States, in the level of production per head of population.

The Soviet people are building a communist society and
are confidently marching towards this great goal. In so
doing they are guided by the immortal teaching of
Marxism-Leninism. There is no doubt whatsoever that the
Soviet people will successfully carry out all the tasks con-
fronting them.

Groussard: The Soviet Union, which already today
possesses innumerable political and economic advantages,
must be regarded as one of the richest countries in the
world. On this basis, don't you think, Mr. Khrushchov, that
the Soviet Union, for its part, could render systematic aid
to underdeveloped countries?

194

I know that the U.S.S.R. is already rendering assistance
to some economically underdeveloped countries. But has
not the time come to conclude an agreement among all the
prosperous states of the world so that aid to the poorest
peoples may be organized on a wide scale and in a
rational way?

Khrushchov: At the Geneva Conference of Heads of
Government Edgar Faure put forward the idea that an
understanding should be reached to end the arms race and
that, out of this, a certain share of the budgets should be
contributed to a common fund for assisting underdevel-
oped countries. At that time, at the Geneva Conference, we
regarded this idea with favour. Today, too, we believe that
if an easing of international tension is achieved, then by
economizing resources now being expended by states on
their armaments and armed forces, sums could be allotted
sufficient to render real and tangible assistance to the
underdeveloped countries.

When underdeveloped countries ask the Soviet Union
for help, it meets them half-way and gives them whatever
help it can. We shall continue this policy in the future.

Our stand is that the aid given the underdeveloped
countries should not place them in a position of depend-
ence on the rich and economically highly developed
countries. Many capitalist countries, though, pursue
a different policy, and grant credits to underdeveloped
countries for military purposes only It is obvious that
credits obtained for military purposes do not raise
the economic potential of the countries that get them,
but, on the contrary, lower this potential. We, on the other
hand, are in favour of assisting the underdeveloped coun-
tries to build up their own industries, so that they can de-
velop their own productive forces and implement their polit-
ical and economic plans independently of other countries.

Unfortunately our policy is not meeting with sympathy
among ruling circles in the economically highly developed
capitalist countries. In granting credits to underdeveloped

195

countries for military purposes or consumer needs, these
capitalist countries try to subjugate them and make them
still more dependent on the will of the ruling circles of
monopolistic states. Take the credits granted for the
purchase of consumer goods, for example. The countries
obtaining the credits quickly use up the consumer goods
and are again obliged to beg fresh credits from the rich
countries. Such credits only make those who receive them
still more dependent on the rich countries. That is why the
rich capitalist countries do not want to grant the under-
developed countries credits for industrial development;
they do not want these countries to put an end to their
economic backwardness. We stand for disinterested and
real help to the underdeveloped countries to enable them
to overcome their backwardness and grow increasingly
more independent from the economic point of view as well.

Groussard: The industrial use of atomic energy in the
Soviet Union is becoming increasingly varied and bold.
Will not these efforts bring about a transformation of the
entire Soviet economy?

Khrushchov: I not only think so— I am sure that the
industrial use of atomic energy will promote a still more
rapid material and technical transformation and develop-
ment of the Soviet economy.

Mastery of the secrets of nuclear energy and its use for
peaceful purposes augment mankind's potentialities in
the effort to make Nature serve the interests of human
well-being. That is precisely why the Soviet people have
set about introducing atomic energy in many branches of
our country's economy with such vigour and on such a
large scale. It is common knowledge that the world's first
atomic power plant has been functioning in our country
since 1954. We have set ourselves the target of building,
in the next few years, atomic power stations with a total
capacity of two to two and a half million kilowatts. Last
year we launched the world's first atomic ice-breaker,
the Lenin — a ship which can cruise for two or three years

196

without refuelling. The use of radioactive isotopes in
various branches of science, industry and agriculture is
also common knowledge. It can be said with conviction
that in a communist society atomic energy will be one of
the main sources of power.

Groussard: Could you say a word or two about the hopes
and achievements emerging from the revolutions of the
first artificial satellites around our planet?

Khrushchov: The making and launching of the artificial
earth satellites ushered in a new era in scientific and
technological development. The sputniks will tremendous-
ly enrich our knowledge of the Earth, its atmosphere and
outer space. The launching of the sputniks is man's first
step into outer space. Scientists are convinced that people
will be able to embark upon interplanetary travel in the
foreseeable future.

The launching of the Soviet artificial earth satellites is
glowing proof of the high level attained by Soviet scientific
and technical personnel and of the high level of our in-
dustrial development. It is the fruit of successful collective
creative effort on the part of the Soviet scientists, engi-
neers, technicians and factory workers who made the
sputniks and the intercontinental ballistic rockets which
put the satellites into orbit.

Not so long ago the United States also launched an
artificial earth satellite. We welcomed this and hope that,
like the Soviet sputniks, it will serve the cause of peace
and of the progress of all mankind. A few days ago, after
a succession of failures, the Americans finally managed to
launch their second "Vanguard" satellite, which has now
joined Soviet Sputnik II and the American "Explorer"
satellite.

Groussard: Will not material achievements lead ulti-
mately to the disappearance of social differences and
national barriers, and to a time when political contra-
dictions will lose all meaning?

Khrushchov: Social differences and national barriers

197

are a result of the class structure of bourgeois society. In
that society the means of production are in the hands of
a small group of people who live at the expense of the
labour of others. Under such conditions the material prog-
ress of society, not only fails to eliminate social differ-
ences, but. on the contrary, increases social inequality
and sharpens the contradictions between the exploited and
the exploiters.

The expansion of production, the development of tech-
nology, everything that promotes material progress, will
not in itself make the worker equal to the capitalist or the
small peasant equal to the Ibig landowner. Under the con-
ditions of a class society the dominant classes utilize ma-
terial progress for their personal enrichment, for concen-
trating new and ever-increasing material values and
riches in their own hands. Can social differences disap-
pear under such conditions? Of course not.

Social differences disappear only under the conditions
of socialist society, in which there are no capitalists,
landed proprietors, financial tycoons and other groups of
exploiters.

In socialist society material progress, far from increas-
ing social inequality, serves to make society still more
monolithic, improves the material well-being of the whole
of society and raises the standard of living of all those
who work. You know that the principle of socialism is
paying for work in accordance with the quantity and qual-
ity of the labour involved. Socialism is the first phase of
communist society, in which the requirements of the peo-
ple will be satisfied in accordance with their needs and
people will work according to their abilities.

As for national barriers, they, too, are a result of the
class structure of capitalist society. National discord and
enmity are fomented by the ruling classes of the bourgeois
states in order that the minority in whose hands the
wealth is concentrated may exploit the majority of the
people, that is to say, the working classes. The exploiting

classes seek to enslave and rob not only their own peo-
ples, but also the peoples of the colonial and dependent
countries. Colonialism is a monstrous offspring of the epoch
of capitalismj Overlordship in Asia, Africa and South
America by the industrially developed countries has
brought grave consequences to the peoples in those areas.

^Private ownership of the means of production and the
capitalist system are inconceivable without the fomenting
of enmity between nations. Capitalism has engendered the
misanthropic "theories" about the superiority of one
nation over another and the inferiority of the so-called
coloured peoples. Who doesn't know how the Negro
population is treated in the United States?\Or remember
the notorious "theories" of the German Tascists on the
necessity of establishing the domination of "Aryans" over
all the other nations.

National barriers disappear only under conditions of a
socialist society. Only under socialism is the national
question properly solved. In old tsarist Russia, for ex-
ample, there were frequent Jewish pogroms, Armenian-
Tatar massacres and other sanguinary manifestations of
national enmity, fomented by capitalism. All this has
disappeared under Soviet government. Soviet children and
young people learn about these abominable occurrences
of the past only from the elder people and literature.

National discord and enmity between nations are ruled
out under socialism. This is clearly seen from the example
of the Soviet Union, the Chinese People's Republic and
the other socialist countries. In socialist society man is
not an enemy to man but a friend and a brother. People
of different nationalities work in one harmonious collective,
and here there is no enmity between nation and nation. In
socialist society there is complete harmony of the social
and national interests of the people.

Thus, it is not a question of the material progress of
society, but of the social conditions under which societv
develops.

199

Groussard: The Soviet Union is becoming more liberal
with regard to travel by foreigners in its territory and
with regard to travel by Soviet citizens abroad. If the
international situation does not worsen, do you think it
will be possible to abolish obstacles to people's movements
gradually, within the next few years? Among the con-
crete measures which could be taken in this direction,
would it be Utopian to imagine the possibility of abolish-
ing visas between Russia and the states of Western
Europe?

Khrushchov: The Soviet Government has done much to
develop foreign tourist travel. Last year we adopted a
number of measures facilitating the development of
tourism. For example, the cost of services to tourists was
revised and a new exchange rate for the ruble, more
advantageous to them, was introduced. I think it will be
of interest to you to learn that in 1957 about 550,000
foreigners visited the Soviet Union. During that period
more than 700,000 people travelled from the U.S.S.R. to
various countries of the world. During 1957 about 11,000
Frenchmen came to the LJ.S.S.R. and about 6,000 Soviet
citizens visited France.

You were right in noting that the question of the move-
ment of foreigners is closely linked with the international
situation. I think that if we were to agree on disarmament
and achieve a decisive relaxation of international tension
and the establishment of complete confidence in relations
between states, the obstacles to altogether lifting re-
strictions on the movement of foreigners in the Soviet
Union and other European countries, and perhaps on their
unrestricted entry into these countries, would similarly
disappear.

Groussard: Could you say what you think of France, her
civilization, her past, and of what she is doing for the be-
nefit of the world.

Khrushchov: Our people have long had feelings of re-
spect and sincere friendship for France. These feelings

200

have firm roots of long standing. Soviet men and women
respect the people of France for their creative genius, for
their freedom-loving traditions. Acquaintance with the
history of the French people, with their revolutionary
past, their struggle for the freedom, democracy and inde-
pendence of their country has great significance for the
Soviet people. As in the past, so today French and Russian
culture and art have close relations and exert a benefi-
cial influence on each other.

France is a Great Power that has long played an im-
portant part in international affairs. The solution of
a number of vital international problems, first and fore-
most those concerning the preservation of peace and
security in Europe, depends to a large extent on her atti-
tude.

We are sincerely interested in seeing a strong and
prosperous France. This largely depends on how future
international relations will develop and on the course
they will take — the course of easing international tension
and strengthening peace or the course of continuing
the cold war and intensifying the arms race, which
means the preparation of another war. One cannot
but agree with the good sense of the arguments
put forward by those who in France today say that
the continuation of the cold war and France's participa-
tion in undertakings arising from the "positions of
strength" policy imposed upon the members of the North
Atlantic bloc, will not bring the French anything except
unnecessary and unproductive squandering of France's
national resources for military preparations, and un-
justified burdens and privations, not to mention the
destruction and disasters should France become involved
in a new world war contrary to the will and wishes of
her people.

I must point out in all honesty that Soviet people find
it hard to understand the policy of France's present rulers.
When studying France's history we have always been

201

moved by feelings of deep respect for the glorious tradi-
tions of that country — the scene of the great French Revo-
lution of 1789, and of the glorious Paris Commune, a
wonderful example to all mankind. We Communists have
learned from the glorious traditions of the French people's
revolutionary struggle.

France's present rulers often impel her to do things
that are contrary to her national interests and to common
sense. Remember, for instance, the French Government's
policy on the eve of the Second World War. If in 1939,
when there were French and British delegations in the
Soviet Union, the French and the British had had a more
serious attitude to the negotiations, there would have been
no war. But the French Government merely played at
negotiations with us, did not really want to reach agree-
ment with us and in that way encouraged Hitler against
us. Thus, at that time France's rulers underestimated the
significance of the Soviet Union and failed to show proper
concern for their own country's future, though progressive
people in your country warned the French Government of
that time of what the consequences might be.

I remember 1944, when General de Gaulle was in the
Soviet Union. Our countries then had good relations but
later the French Government again began to pay more
heed to the voice of certain circles in some countries in-
triguing against the Soviet Union. By worsening her rela-
tions with the Soviet Union, France is weakening her
positions, too, in her relations with West Germany, Britain
and the United States. We very much regret the way the
situation has developed; we regret that we are not meet-
ing with proper understanding from France.

When M. Guy Mollet and M. Pineau were in the Soviet
Union, we had many conversations with them, and drew
attention to the French Government's unwise policy
towards Viet-Nam, as a result of which France had lost
Viet-Nam completely; North Viet-Nam won independence,
with the establishment there of the Democratic Republic

202

of Viet-Nam, while South Viet-Nam is now completely
under United States' influence, with the American monop-
olies today holding sway there. A great deal of energy
was wasted on that sterile war for which the French peo-
ple had to make many sacrifices.

For several years now French ruling circles have been
waging a colonial war in Algeria, trying to shore up the
colonial system there and to forge stronger chains of colo-
nial bondage. However, France will ultimately lose this
war, too, if France's rulers are not wise, and continue to
wage a war in which Frenchmen and Algerians alike are
dying, and thereby exhaust their own country and do
tremendous harm to Algeria. I think it would be far more
sensible if the French were to show the same measure of
understanding as Britain did towards India and Burma.
Now the French in. Algeria want to subjugate the Arabs by
force of arms. As far as I remember, there are more than
eight million Arabs in Algeria and only about one million
Europeans, including the French. The Algerian war will
be a grim struggle to the point of exhaustion. The Algerian
people who have risen up in the struggle for national
liberation will not give in.

Groussard: It is my duty to tell you, Mr. Khrushchov,
that the overwhelming majority of my fellow-countrymen
will be grieved to hear what you say about a drama that
my country is taking so much to heart. The French do not
want to subjugate the Arabs of Algeria by force of arms.
If that was all that was involved it would be so simple.
The question is infinitely more complicated. It includes,
of course, the fact that 1,200,000 native Frenchmen live
in Algeria. But 400,000 Europeans, Jews and people of
mixed blood also live there. . . . There are hundreds of
thousands of Moslem servicemen and ex-servicemen who
do not want to recognize any flag other than the tricolour.
Four hundred thousand Algerian workers live in France.
Account must also be taken of the enmity between the
Berbers, who comprise the majority of the population,

203

those who belong to the National Liberation Front — and
there are many of them, true enough — and those who
are in the Algerian National Movement, etc. Let order be
restored swiftly so that Algeria may be able freely to
decide her destiny. If France and Algeria were able to
settle their mutual problems face to face, without open or
covert outside interference, a peaceful and harmonious
settlement would have been found long ago.

Khrushchov: If a more reasonable approach to the
solution of the Algerian problem, in keeping with the
spirit of the times, could be found, Algeria would evident-
ly be able to have some kind of state contact with the
French Republic in a way that would not weaken Algeria's
national economy and political liberties, but would, on
the contrary, strengthen them. We stand for a just settle-
ment of the Algerian question and the satisfaction of the
aspirations of the Algerian people.

We do not want a weakening of France — we want a
strengthening of France's greatness. The greatness of
France is no threat to us. On the contrary, the more France
displays her independence as a Great Power, the easier
it will be, by joint efforts, to achieve a settlement of many
European and world problems which have long been de-
manding a solution. Unfortunately, on a whole number of
questions, France is maintaining an attitude which does
not increase her prestige, because she is following in the
wake of the dollar policy. The impression is created that
France's policy on many questions is subordinated to the
United States of America. We want to hope that France
will rid herself of a policy which leads to the progressive
weakening of the country. In our opinion, a change in
France's foreign policy would help to increase France's
greatness in the international sphere and enhance her
role among the Great Powers of the world.

I consider that those people are right who want France,
relying on her long-standing peaceful traditions, to
initiate proposals to slacken international tension and

2Q4

develop peaceful co-operation among all states. We are
convinced that it is precisely along these lines that France
can ensure a peaceful life for her people and her future
as a Great Power.

I want you to understand me correctly. I am saying this
from a friendly standpoint as I am anxious about the
none too far-sighted measures of some present-day French
statesmen.

Groussard: Do you think the Soviet Union and France
could have closer cultural and economic contacts?

Khrushchov: We are deeply convinced of the need to
develop fruitful economic and cultural ties between the
U.S.S.R. and France. Good trade always leads to better
relations. This is also essential for the consolidation of
peace; those who think of trade do not think of war. Today
certain French commodities have gained currency in the
U.S.S.R. The sale of Soviet goods in France has corre-
spondingly increased. But we consider that available op-
portunities in this field have by no means been exhausted.
They would be much more extensive if the bans and the
discriminatory lists introduced by the Western countries
on trade with the U.S.S.R. and the other socialist
countries were abolished. The conclusion in February 1957
of a long-term Franco-Soviet agreement envisaging a
threefold increase in trade as compared with 1955, as
well as the signing of a protocol in December 1957, are
only the beginning of broad and stable economic contacts
between our countries.

Economic co-operation should not be confined to com-
merce alone. As long ago as May 17, 1957, in the Soviet
Government's message to the French Prime Minister, we
proposed to France a joint discussion on such matters as
opening Chambers of Commerce in Moscow and Paris, the
periodical organization of industrial and agricultural ex-
hibitions in the U.S.S.R. and France, co-operation in the
development of fuel and power resources, co-operation in
the peaceful uses of atomic energy, etc. Unfortunately we

205

have not yet received any reply to the Soviet Govern-
ment's message.

In connection with the latest scientific achievements, in
particular achievements in the peaceful uses of atomic
energy, new and broad prospects for co-operation are
opening up before our countries. I think it would not be
a bad idea for our countries to conclude an appropriate
agreement on scientific and technical matters, as this
would give both states an opportunity to make themselves
familiar with the practical experience our countries have
accumulated.

The prospects for promoting cultural contacts are
equally extensive. Last October there were Franco-Soviet
talks in Paris on cultural and scientific contacts. They
were concluded with the signing of a protocol and a plan
for reciprocal exchanges in the fields of education, science
and culture for this year, and with the establishment of
a joint Franco-Soviet commission. Under this plan the
Bolshoi Theatre Ballet Company is to perform this year in
Paris and the ballet company of the Paris National Opera
is to perform in Moscow. There will be a wider exchange
of concerts, exhibitions, films, radio and television pro-
grammes, etc. This, of course, is far from being the limit
to what can be achieved. Both sides must help to extend
contacts.

Groussard: In your opinion the Soviet Union is now in
the last stage separating socialism from communism. Do
you think it possible to build communism when the Soviet
Union and the People's Democracies are encircled by the
so-called capitalist countries?

Khrushchov: I would like to draw your attention to the
fact that today the very concept of the "capitalist encircle-
ment" of our country requires serious clarification. With
the formation of the world socialist system the situation in
the world has changed radically. Moreover, as you know,
it has not changed to the advantage of capitalism. Today
you cannot tell who is encircling whom— -whether the

206

capitalist countries encircle the socialist countries, or vice
versa. The socialist countries cannot be regarded as an
islet in the middle of a seething capitalist ocean. The
socialist countries are inhabited by 1,000 million people
out of a world population of 2,500 million. And how many
people in other countries adhere to socialist views! Thus,
it is now out of the question to speak of capitalist encircle-
ment as it was understood before.

As for the victory of communism in our country, this
is beyond all doubt. The Soviet people are confidently
marching towards the victory of communism. Those who
would like to study the ways and means of building com-
munism in our country in greater detail can address them-
selves to a host of books and articles that elaborate the
subject fully enough. I do not think there is any need for me
to explain this matter in detail to the readers of your paper.

Groussard: You were a worker before you devoted your-
self to active politics?

Khrushchov:\Yes, I worked in the Donets Basin— worked
in a mine which was owned by French capitalists in the
past.

Groussard: Were they good masters?

Khrushchov: They were just' like all the other capitalist
masters. I also worked at a plant owned by a German, and
at a coke and chemical plant owned by a Belgian. I
learned from my own experience that for the working man
it makes no difference who owns a factory or mine — a Rus-
sian or a German, a Belgian or a Frenchman. All owners
wanted us to work more and earn less> The capitalists
largely contributed to making a communist international-
ist out of mej All capitalists live on the workers' labour
and exploit them.

When I read Emile Zola's Germinal, I thought that he
was writing not about France, but about the mine in
which my father and I worked. The worker's lot was the
same both in France and in Russia. When, later on,
I listened to lectures on political economy and the

207

lecturer spoke about the wage system under capital-
ism, about the exploitation of the workers, it seemed to
me as though Karl Marx had been at the mine where my
father and I had worked. It seemed as if it were from
observing our life as workers that he had deduced his laws
and scientifically proved why and how the workers must
liberate themselves from capitalist slavery and build a
socialist society.

Groussard: And so, starting as a worker, you advanced
step by step. If I am not mistaken, you are the first leader
of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union who comes
from the midst of the workers. Neither Lenin nor Stalin
were workers. Isn't this distinctive feature of yours par-
ticularly important for your views, your originality? I have
talked about you with Russian people a good deal. They
tell me that what they like about you is the fact that you
speak a simple language, easily understood by the people.

Khrushchov: This is a somewhat abstract question. I am
a member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
and in this Party there are not only workers. The Commu-
nist Party expresses and defends the vital interests of the
working class and all the working people of our country.

The working class, the proletariat in the capitalist
countries, is the most organized, the most advanced class
of society. I myself come from the ranks of the workers.
But in our Party there are many people who come from the
working peasantry and the intelligentsia. They have been
working in our Party for a long time, putting their labour
into our common cause, into building communism.
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin is the great founder and immortal
leader of our Party. And he came from the gentry. But no
one understood the interests of the working class, the in-
terests of the people, as well as Lenin did. No one did as
much for the working class, for the people, as Lenin did.
That is why Lenin is the man who is most highly esteemed
in our Party, by our people, by the working class. Lenin
is the great leader of all progressive mankind.

208

I have not ascribed, and do not ascribe, my advance-
ment to the fact that I am a worker. Evidently I have been
supported and am being supported in the Party, and
elected to leading posts because by my work I justify the
trust of my fellow-Communists and carry out the duties
entrusted to me. I have always tried to serve the Party,
the people and our great cause loyally and faithfully, and
I am doing everything I can to justify the confidence of
the Party, the people. We Communists are convinced that
the only correct path for mankind is the path of socialist
development. Socialism expresses the vital interests of
the people, of all men and women who live, not by exploit-
ing the working folk, but by their own labour. It brings
the peoples deliverance from social and national oppres-
sion, from the horrors of unemployment and the arbitrary
rule of a handful of monopolists who have usurped a
country's entire wealth.

We are convinced that the peoples of all countries will
come to socialism, to communism, but when and how —
that is the internal affair of each people. Believe me, I do
not want to frighten you with communism, since I know
that you are an opponent of communism. I am speaking of
this only because you have touched on this question.

Groussard: I am not a Communist. But I do not regard
a man who is a Communist as my enemy. There are Com-
munists to whom I am openly hostile. Others I respect, in
spite of the fact that I seldom share their views. I feel
neither hate nor fear. Why should I fear Communists
more than they fear me? I had many Communists among
my friends in the Resistance Movement and in German
camps for deportees. They are still my friends today. The
fact that they are Communists, whereas I am not, does not
weaken our friendship.

Khrushchov: I have different views on that matter.
Friendship is real and strong when people see eye to eye
on developments, history and life. If you do not share
the philosophy of the Communist Party, since you have

209

your own principles and views, you can only have good,
kindly relations with Communists. It would be hard to
have deep friendship as we understand it.

Groussard: As far as I know, you have devoted much
of your life to combating religion. But I also know that
you do not come out openly against religious feelings. I
would like to ask you: Does God exist? Is there any
Supreme Power?

Khrushchov: Do you think there is?

Groussard: Yes.

Khrushchov: I think there is no God. I have long
since rid myself of such a notion. I am a supporter of the
scientific world outlook. And science and belief in super-
natural forces are incompatible, one excludes the other.
That is, of course, if we are to be fully consistent in our
scientific views.

Much nonsense is often said about us Communists;
it is argued that people who do not believe in God, that
even religious people have no clear notion of, cannot be
guided by lofty feelings of humanism. The Communists,
however, are the most humane of people, because they do
not struggle for a good life for themselves alone. It is
in the capitalist world that the rich and affluent strive
for a good life, caring nothing for others. In America
today, for instance, production is sharply falling off and
unemployment is inexorably mounting. There, a tiny hand-
ful of millionaires and billionaires have piled up immense
riches, while many millions of people in that country are
now without work. They can die from want and privation
or drag out a miserable existence and none of the mil-
lionaires or billionaires will be worried about it. Such
is the law of capitalism, where private ownership of the
means of production predominates.! But most of these mil-
lionaires and billionaires consider themselves to be be-
lievers in God. What, then, is this kind of faith in God
worth?

We Communists are against that. We maintain that

210

every man has a right to work, to the good life which
human society can ensure for all. We are for the genuine
equality of people and nations. Isn't this an expression
of humanity? Concern for the living human being, for the
society in which you live, for the life of the people — such
are our ideals and such are our convictions. I think this
is far better than believing in God and robbing the people
who work for you, better than throwing them out of the
factories on to the streets, as the capitalists who believe
in God do.

The question of who believes in God and who does not
isn't a matter for conflicts. It is each person's private
affair. So let us not go into details about it.

Groussard: What do you think about the development of
the United Nations, Mr. Khrushchov? Perhaps you will
say how the Soviet Union plans to promote world peace?

Khrushchov: The United Nations is a useful instrument
and is doing something to settle international problems.
Yet we cannot blind ourselves to the fact that some in-
fluential members of the United Nations are trying to
order other countries around and impose upon them a line
in foreign policy which has little in common with the
noble aims and purposes of the United Nations as in-
scribed in its Charter. Under such circumstances the
United Nations naturally cannot be an organization of
international co-operation in the full sense of the term.

We consider it necessary to continue to strengthen the
United Nations and to strive to make this organization
ultimately a more effective instrument for international
co-operation.

As for the Soviet Union's plans for promoting world
peace, the Soviet Government has already done much in
that direction. That is common knowledge. I believe you,
too, know about the latest proposals of the Soviet Govern-
ment for easing international tension and also about the
Soviet Government's messages sent to M. Gaillard, the
Prime Minister of France, on December 10, 1957, and on

211

January 8, 1958. The Soviet Government has suggested
calling a summit conference with the participation of the
Heads of Government to discuss such questions as: the
immediate cessation of hydrogen and atomic weapons
tests; renunciation of the use of nuclear weapons; the
creation of an atom-free zone in Central Europe; the con-
clusion of a non-aggression pact between the member-
states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the
Warsaw Treaty Organization; the reduction of foreign
troops in Germany and in other European states; the
elaboration of an agreement on the prevention of surprise
attacks; measures to extend international commercial
contacts; the ending of war propaganda; ways and
means of easing tension in the Middle East.

The Soviet Union has adopted a number of unilateral
measures to ease international tension which are well
known. Prominent among them are the large cuts in the
U.S.S.R.'s armed forces. We expect that ultimately the
Western Powers will follow the same road.

Those are some views I wianted to express on the
questions you have raised.

I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to
convey through your paper best wishes to the great French
people who have inscribed many a glorious page in the
history of mankind.

It is our sincere desire that there should be growing
confidence between our peoples and the peoples of the
world, that feelings of friendship should become stronger,
that the state of cold war should end, and that there
should be no possibility of a new war breaking out as a
means of settling disputes. Our aim is to have world peace
guaranteed by the joint effort of all nations and states.
And we are persistently exerting our efforts towards this
goal.

Pravda, March 27, 1958

INTERVIEW GIVEN TO ERIC RIDDER,

OWNER AND PUBLISHER OF JOURNAL OF COMMERCE,

AND ITS EDITOR HEINZ LUEDICKE

March 22, 1958

Eric Ridder, owner and publisher of the Journal of
Commerce, and Heinz Luedicke, its editor, asked N. S.
Khrushchov, First Secretary of the Central Committee of
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, to reply to a
number of questions.

N. S. Khrushchov received Eric Ridder and Heinz Lue-
dicke on March 22. N. S. Khrushchov's replies are pub-
lished below.*

Ridder: Do you believe that, despite ideological
differences, mutually profitable two-way trade can be de-
veloped between East and West?

Khrushchov: Our attitude to this question is well known.
We considered, and still consider, that ideological
differences are in no way an obstacle to the development
of mutually profitable trade between socialist and capital-
ist countries.

I would recall that already in the early twenties many
Western countries, because of economic expediency
established, despite ideological differences, trade relations
with the Soviet Union. Since then trade between the Soviet

* All the remarks by Messrs. Ridder and Luedicke are retrans-
lated from the official version of the text of the interview.

213

Union and capitalist countries, except for certain relative-
ly brief interruptions, has continued to develop steadily.

In 1957, for instance, our trade with capitalist countries
increased (at comparable prices) approximately twofold
as compared with 1938. But can this growth be consid-
ered adequate and corresponding to the interests of the de-
velopment of world trade? No, it cannot. We are ready for
a further extension of trade, but certain circles in the
Western countries — those who are interested in the con-
tinuation of the cold war — are using the existing ideolog-
ical differences as a false pretext to justify their unwil-
lingness to devek)p normal trade relations with the Soviet
Union and the other socialist countries.

If the principles of peaceful co-existence are adhered
to, then no ideological differences, though they do of
course exist, should prevent the development and broaden-
ing of mutually profitable economic ties. Peaceful co-
existence is a living reality whose significance in interna-
tional relations is growing. Trade constitutes that sound
and stable basis upon which co-existence between
countries with different social and economic systems can
successfully develop and be consolidated. I think you will
agree with me that trade has a more than economic
significance. Trade is the most normal way of establish-
ing good relations between countries. Trade and economic
ties create a good basis for the consolidation of political
relations between states.

I should also like to speak about present-day Soviet-
American trade relations.

You will probably remember that a trade agreement was
concluded between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. in 1937
and that this agreement laid a good basis for the develop-
ment of normal trade. Unfortunately, Soviet-American
trade did not expand after the war, mainly because the
Government of the U.S.A. introduced a number of restric-
tive measures. In 1951, it denounced the Soviet-American
trade agreement.

214

What can be said on this score? I think that the Soviet
Union can exist without the agreement. It is apparently
doing so by no means unsuccessfully. Evidently those in
the U.S.A. who continue to support the virtually complete
severance of the trade relations between our two countries
take the view that such a situation causes no harm to the
United States. That, of course, is their business. We con-
sider that the successful development of trade between
the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. on the basis of equality and
mutual advantage would not only be in the interests of
the Soviet and American peoples and of the strengthening
of confidence in U.S. -Soviet relations, but would also con-
tribute to the further relaxation of international tension
and would therefore be in the interests of all countries
and peoples.

To be more specific, we have a large variety of goods in
which your country is interested. For example, we always
sold you manganese ore and we are ready to do so now.
I don't mean that we can satisfy your needs immediately;
if we receive an order we can increase the extraction of
this ore. We can also consider the question of selling
iron ore. The United States also used to buy some food-
stuffs from the U.S.S.R.— crabmeat and caviar; it also
bought furs. Today, we can sell you these goods in the
same or even greater quantities. Whatever you do not
want to buy, don't buy, whatever you do not wart to sell,
don't sell. But let us exercise the same right: to buy what
we need and to sell what we can. It would be in the inter-
ests of the United States if it abandoned trade discrimina-
tion and adopted a policy directed towards the large-
scale development of trade with our country.

Of course, the development of trade is the United
States Government's own business, but we believe that
not to recognize the Chinese People's Republic is not in
the interests of the United States. The Soviet Union, the
Chinese People's Republic and other socialist countries
could purchase large quantities of American goods. This

215

would be a sure basis for halting the current recession in
American industry. Let us recall the thirties. By contempo-
rary standards, we purchased large quantities of goods
from you. Today we are able to do much more, our in-
dustry is highly developed, we can sell more and buy
more, and, consequently, there are prospects for good
trade deals.

Ridden I do not know, Mr. Khrushchov, whether you
know that our paper advocates just that — trade with
China.

Khrushchov: That is very reasonable. Political dislike
of this or that system is a bad counsellor. In business it
can only cause harm. Ford was certainly not a Com-
munist, as you very well know. But we had good business
relations with him. It was advantageous both to Ford and
to us; it was beneficial to our two countries. Colonel
Cooper, who was an adviser during the construction of a
power plant in Zaporozhye, was not a Communist. But
the Soviet Government awarded him the Order of the Red
Banner of Labour for the sincere help he gave us. That
was a period when our relations with the United States
of America were good. And we would be willing to re-
establish these relations. Let's agree that you will not
sell us armaments and will not buy armaments from us.
Let us trade in the products of peaceful labour, that will
be to your and to our benefit.

Ridden But I still suspect that we want to buy your
war material, and you want to buy ours. (Laughter.)

Khrushchov: You are right, I do not deny, but I think we
shall not come to terms on that. I should like to say that
the development of trade will bring about the relaxation
of international tension and then the sale and purchase of
arms will be of much less interest. If countries are not
preparing for war, then why should they buy or sell arms
or manufacture them at all?

Ridder: I agree. Now we should like to know the follow-
ing. Are you ready to consider negotiating commercial

216

treaties between the Soviet and the Western countries, as
they have long been considered a necessary part of normal
international trade relations?

Khrushchov: I do not quite understand what you have
in mind. Our trade relations with foreign countries have
for a long time been based on commercial treaties which
establish the general principles of trade, and also on trade
and payments agreements which regulate practical ques-
tions of commerce and payment.

The Soviet Union today has trade treaty relations with
45 countries: with all the socialist countries, almost all
the countries of Western Europe, including Britain,
France, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Greece, Sweden, etc.,
with the majority of Asian and African countries, includ-
ing India, Indonesia, Japan, Iran, Afghanistan, Burma,
the United Arab Republic, and many others. We also have
trade agreements with two countries of the American
continent — Canada and Argentina.

With a number of countries we have agreements which
provide for the development of exchange on the basis of
agreed lists of commodities for reciprocal deliveries.

Many Western countries are showing an interest in the
development of trade with the Soviet Union on the basis
of long-term agreements. That is why the Soviet Union
has in recent years concluded long-term agreements on
reciprocal deliveries with a number of capitalist countries,
for instance, a five-year agreement with Finland and long-
term agreements with Norway, Iceland and Denmark,
In 1957 alone we concluded such long-term agreements
with France, Italy, Austria, Afghanistan and Iran.
Negotiations are in progress on a long-term agreement
between the U.S.S.R. and the Federal Republic of Ger-
many, All these agreements provide for a substantial in-
crease in trade.

The United States of America is now the only Great
Power and one of the few countries of the world with
which the Soviet Union does not have trade treaty rela-

217

tions. If the Government of the United States expresses
a desire to conclude a trade treaty or agreement with the
U.S.S.R., I can assure you of a favourable response from
the Soviet side.

Ridder: What is your opinion on the development of
multilateral trade relations?

Khrushchov: Trade can, of course, be both bilateral and
multilateral, like any other ties between countries. If trade
develops we agree with anything that will encourage this
development.

Ridder: That is a very good statement.

We understand, Mr. Khrushchov, that your policy con-
sists in balancing exports and imports so as to get by
without the purchase and sale of gold.

Khrushchov: You won't get very far on gold reserves
alone; they are always limited, whereas the development
of economic capacity and commodity production is the
potential of the nation, the potential of the people, and
these are always richer than gold reserves. Internationa!
economic relations should be developed mainly on the
basis of the exchange of commodities— in other words,
on the basis of buying and selling. We do not deny that
gold plays a part in trade and we are not in favour of
just sitting on sacks of it.

Ridder: We would like you to tell us your views regard-
ing price policy in world trade, and particularly on
dumping.

Khrushchov: The dumping policy has always been
censured not only by us but by other countries too. We
believe it to be an unhealthy basis for trade. The subject
of dumping has arisen apparently in connection with the
recession which has developed in the U.S.A. and in other
capitalist countries. The Soviet Union and the other social-
ist countries will clearly have to do something about
preventing the crises which are arising and will continue
to arise in the capitalist countries from affecting the
economy of the socialist countries.

218

Luedicke: Let us, for example, take the following case:
Germany proposes to sell machines to a country, say, for
100 million rubles, and the Soviet Union proposes exactly
the same machines and in the same quantity for 90 mil-
lion rubles. That is not dumping, because dumping means
selling below the cost of production. This is rather a ques-
tion of undercutting.

Khrushchov: The price depends on the cost of produc-
tion, and the cost of production depends on many factors,
including the level of labour productivity. One manu-
facturer can ask one price for a certain commodity while
another, even in the same country, can ask a different
price. This price may be lower, but still be profitable for
the manufacturer.

Luedicke: That is quite possible here. But with us, in
conditions of competition, prices must be maintained on
one level, otherwise the manufacturer will not be able to
invest enough money in the development of industry and
then he will either go bankrupt or get out of the industry.
This is a major difference between our two systems.

Khrushchov: That is true. Take, in particular, the U.S.A.,
Japan and West Germany. There is now a clear trend
showing that West Germany can compete in production
with the United States of America. So can Japan. West
German and Japanese goods have already penetrated into
U.S. markets and thus West Germany and Japan have
become America's competitors.

As far as the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. are concerned,
our countries have no points of conflict (I mean in our
economic relations) for we are not your competitors. We
manufacture machines and are increasing their produc-
tion, but basically for our own consumption. We have
many useful raw materials, both for industry and for
foodstuffs, though I don't suppose you have any need for
the latter.

It is strange that business circles in the U.S.A. do not
understand +hat in this sense our countries are not com-

219

petitors and that the development of trade between our
two countries is in the interests of the U.S. economy. It
would seem that such trade should be encouraged in every
possible way. But some American politicians are so
blinded by their hatred of our system that they ignore the
interests of their own country and people.

Luedicke: But you do export machines and other types
of commodities which we also export?

Khrushchov: We do so not because we need to export
machines, but because some countries ask us to assist
in their economic development. They cannot get such
machines from the United States or Britain, which do not
want to trade with them on a mutually profitable com-
mercial basis. But we build our relations with all countries
on the basis of mutual advantage, without attaching any
political strings. In selling our commodities to these
countries, we are not prompted by the profit motive. We
try to meet the needs of the people of these countries. We
export equipment mainly to friendly countries, to countries
which have freed themselves from colonial dependence.
Such a state of affairs cannot be called competition.
Ridden How would you feel about opening Soviet ports
to Western shipping? And which ports would you consider
for such treatment?

Khrushchov: This question also surprises me. In this
field too some people in the United States still seem to
have misconceptions about the Soviet Union, regarding
it as a country allegedly fenced off from the outside world.
I should like to point out that at present the Soviet Union
trades with more than 70 countries of the world (as I said
before, with 45 of them we have trade agreements), and
that a considerable part of its foreign trade— as much
as 40 per cent— is carried by sea. In addition to the Soviet
merchant marine, considerable use is made of ships flying
foreign flags.

Having in mind only major ports, our foreign trade is
carried on through more than 20 Soviet ports, including

220

Leningrad, Riga, Ventspils, Klaipeda, Odessa, Novoros-
siisk, Tuapse, Poti, Murmansk, Arkhangelsk, Igarka, Na-
khodka and others. In 1956, about 4,500 foreign ships
flying the flags of 37 states called at Soviet ports. It is
true that lately United States ships are rare guests at our
ports. Well, it's up to you, you know best.

Ridden Would Russia be willing to permit Western
nations to establish direct trade relations with her
satellites in Europe and would you grant these satellite
nations the right to shape their economic policies to ac-
commodate such broadened trade relations?

Khrushchov: You, like some others of your countrymen,
have a rather distorted idea about the so-called "satellites
of the Soviet Union." If you mean the People's Democ-
racies, I must make it clear to you that all of them are
sovereign and independent countries. These states draw
up and pursue their own home and foreign policies, in-
cluding their trade policy, independently. They trade ex-
tensively with almost all countries of the world and, as
far as I know, are ready to develop such trade in every
way on a mutually advantageous basis.

Ridden Which are the principal trade areas in which
closer East-West relations could be built up with mutual
benefit? Which products would you like to buy and sell
most?

Khrushchov: Opportunities for East-West economic
co-operation exist in all parts of the world. International
economic co-operation, if developed under normal condi-
tions, would enable the nations of the world to make
greater use of the benefits and advantages of the interna-
tional division of labour.

Forty years have elapsed since the victory of the Great
October Socialist Revolution. During these years the
Soviet Union has become a major world trading country.
Soviet foreign trade turnover for 1957 totalled, in world
prices, some 33,000 million rubles (over $8,000 million),
approximately one half exports and one half imports. This

221

Was 13 per cent more than in 1956, when the Soviet Union
already held sixth place among the world's trading
nations.

The Soviet Union's biggest trading partners in the
capitalist world are Britain, Finland, France, West Ger-
many, Italy, Belgium, Holland and Sweden in Western
Europe, and India, Iran, Afghanistan, and the United Arab
Republic in Asia and Africa. We expect our trade to con-
tinue to expand in the future. We should be only too
pleased if the United States of America were to become
one of our big trading partners.

The list of Soviet exports today comprises several
thousand items, and I should like to point out that the
range of our imports and exports has increased con-
siderably in the post-war period as a result of the develop-
ment of our national economy.

The Soviet Union remains a major importer of many
types of machinery and equipment. From capitalist coun-
tries we purchase metal-cutting machine tools, forge and
press equipment, mining machinery, equipment for the
iron and steel industry, hoisting and transport equipment,
chemical plant (including equipment for the manufacture
of artificial fibres and plastics), power equipment, equip-
ment for the manufacture of building materials and for
the light, food and printing industries.

The Soviet Union also imports considerable quantities
of raw materials and manufactured goods, as well as
some consumer goods. Our purchases include ferrous
rolled stock, certain non-ferrous metals, chemical products,
rubber, artificial fibres and yarn, hides and other goods.

Soviet exports include several hundred types of metal-
cutting machine tools alone. The Soviet Union exports
various types of turbines, forge and press equipment,
hoisting and transport equipment, road-making and build-
ing machinery, equipment for the food and light industries,
printing machinery, paper-making machines, agricultural
machinery of various types, lorries, cars and tractors.

222

In addition to machinery and equipment, the Soviet
Union exports considerable quantities of manganese and
chromium ores, certain non-ferrous metals, ferro-alloys,
metals of the platinum group, oil and oil products, coal,
asbestos, cellulose and paper products, timber, mineral
fertilizers, chemical products, grain, flax, cotton and
linter, furs, goat's hair, camel's hair, tobacco, essential
oils and medicinal herbs, bristles, horsehair and other
animal products, caviar, canned fish and crabmeat,
textiles, handicraft goods, etc.

This list, which is far from complete, shows that the
Soviet Union has vast opportunities for trade with any
country of the world.

Ridden How would national security requirements have
to be handled to satisfy Soviet interests, and what would
your attitude be toward the reservations we might feel
should be made on national security grounds?

Khrushchov: In asking this question, you apparently
proceed from the assumption that to ensure the interests
of "national security" the existing restrictions on trade be-
tween the capitalist and socialist countries should to some
extent be preserved. At the same time, you seem to be in
favour of developing East-West trade. These are clearly
incompatible positions, for the complete and comprehen-
sive development of trade does not permit of any discrim-
inatory restrictions or bans.

By introducing these bans and restrictions, certain
short-sighted people in the West hoped to obstruct the
growth of the economic potential of the Soviet Union and
the other socialist states, to retard their technical progress
and, with the aid of a policy of discrimination and boycott,
to hinder the rapid advance of their economies. It was of
no avail! History has laughed at the sponsors of this
policy. The whole world knows of the achievements of the
Soviet Union and of all the socialist countries in the fields
of economy, science and technology, including military
technology. The Soviet Union developed the hydrogen

223

bomb before the United States. We have developed the
intercontinental ballistic missile and were the first to
launch earth satellites. We are making gigantic strides in
raising the living standards of our people.

The Western Powers, by following this unrealistic and
disadvantageous policy, merely aggravate their own eco-
nomic difficulties. Many prominent Western leaders and
also the Western press are with increasing frequency mak-
ing sharp comments regarding the stupidity of the lists of
so-called "strategic goods," the export of which to the so-
cialist countries is either banned or restricted. These lists
include many goods which we now export ourselves, and
many others which we, perhaps, would not have bought
anyway— even if the restrictions on them had been lifted
— owing to the development of our own industry.

I should like to recall one fact. You know that the So-
viet Government in 1956 allowed the sale to the American
Dresser Industries Company of the patent for the Soviet
turbo-drill, which American specialists have admitted to
be far superior to anything the U.S.A. has in this respect.
But the American Government forbade the company to dis-
close to their Soviet partners certain specifications con-
cerning American oil-drilling equipment.

We advocate the lifting of all restrictions and bans on
trade between the capitalist and the socialist countries not
only because we hope it would promote the establishment
of confidence in the relations between all nations and bring
about a relaxation of international tension, but also be-
cause discriminatory restrictions lead to uncertainty in
commerce and mistrust between the partners in trade.
Connected as you are with business circles, you should
know full well how much confidence means in commerce
and how adversely its absence affects the development of
trade.

We are in favour of selling what we can sell and of buy-
ing what we want to buy, and we want our partners to be
able to sell and buy what they want. And the things which

224

either you or we cannot sell should not be a subject for
reciprocal claims.

Ridden While there have been a number of studies
within the past year or so of the industrial growth of the
Soviet economy, the West thus far has had no access to
anything comparable to the statistical data available to
you on the American economy. Would you be willing to
support comparative economic studies to be held strictly
outside the propaganda sphere?

Khrushchov: I must point out that your question arises
from some misunderstanding. In our country statistical
data on industrial development have been very extensively
published, particularly after the 20th Congress of the
C.P.S.U. at the beginning of 1956.

In the Soviet socialist state the national economy is
developing according to plan. You, of course, realize that
without statistics it is impossible to draw up a plan, to
check its fulfilment, to find reserves for its overfulfilment,
etc. Great importance is therefore attached to statistics in
our country. Under a socialist system statistics guarantee
true data, based on scientific principles, and have access
to all reports from industrial undertakings.

Our press regularly publishes the reports of the Central
Statistical Board of the U.S.S.R. Council of Ministers on
the fulfilment of the state plan for the development of the
Soviet national economy for half-yearly and yearly pe-
riods. The Central Statistical Board has now begun to
issue monthly reports on the fulfilment of the plan in indus-
try. As you probably have already noticed, the report on
the fulfilment of the state plan by Soviet industry during
February 1958 was published in our central press on
March 13.

We publish many statistical surveys. For instance,
210,000 copies of the statistical year-book The National
Economy of the U.S.S.R. were published in 1956 and 1957.
To mark the 40th anniversary of the Great October So-
cialist Revolution, we published 150,000 copies of a statis-

225

tical survey 40 Years of Soviet Power in Facts and
Figures. In addition to reference books describing the de-
velopment of all branches of the Soviet national economy,
we also publish surveys dealing with individual branches.
Statistical data are also published in the monthly review
Vestnik StatistikL

If we take statistical data for industry, I can tell you
that last year we published a special statistical survey,
Industry in the U.S.S.R. In all statistical publications
dealing with industry we widely publish the most essential
indices showing both the development of industry as a
whole and of its various branches: general indices of in-
dustrial production, physical volume of industrial output,
power indices of industry, technical and economic indices
for various branches, the utilization of equipment, in-
creases in productivity of labour, the lowering of costs of
production, etc.

I should point out that for a number of indices Soviet
statistical publications are more informative than Ameri-
can. For instance, to the best of my knowledge, U.S. statis-
tics, including those in your own paper, publish scant
data on the production costs for the principal elements,
citing only incomplete and fragmentary information. So-
viet statistics systematically publish figures concerning
the structure of expenditure for industrial production as
a whole and in individual branches, laying particular
stress on separate elements. We also periodically publish
indices showing the reduction of industrial production
costs.

Let us take, for instance, this fact: current American
statistics, including — I hope you won't be offended — your
newspaper, have in recent years not been publishing com-
plete data on the actual production of metal-cutting
machine tools and forge and press equipment, that is, the
number produced. They have confined themselves to data
concerning the cost of manufactured machine tools and
to haphazard data on particular groups of machine tools.

226

Our statistical publications always contain complete data
as to quantity in this respect.

Let us finally consider the stock of metal-cutting and
forge and press equipment. Official American statistics do
not publish such data, whereas in our statistical returns we
periodically publish complete and exhaustive figures.

Of course, the economic conceptions which underlie
Soviet statistics and bourgeois statistics are different.
Soviet statistics, for example, clearly distinguish between
the sphere of material production and that of non-produc-
tive branches and between the concepts "production" aad
"services." In the U.S.S.R. the volume of the total social
product does not include the value of "services" in non-
productive branches of the national economy, whereas in
U.S. statistics the "gross national product" embraces all
services irrespective of whether they are connected with
production or not. Similarly, while defining the volume
and structure of the national income, Soviet statistics treat
the national income not as a mere sum of all kinds of in-
come, as is the practice in bourgeois statistics, but as a
sum of primary incomes received in the sphere of material
production. As far as production costs are concerned,
statistics in capitalist countries are obliged, for instance,
to take into account the existence of the so-called "com-
mercial secret."

It can therefore be seen that Soviet statistical data pro-
vide at least the same opportunities for the study of indus-
trial development in the U.S.S.R. as American statistical
data provide for the study of industrial development in the
U.S.A., as well as for a comparative study of their devel-
opment.

Luedicke: How do you determine the costs of production
in your plans? True, this is beyond the scope of simple
statistics, these are already the fundamentals of econom-
ics. Do your prices correspond to the costs of production?

Khrushchov: The cost of production, as you know, con-
sists of many elements. Our domestic prices do not always

227

and in all cases correspond to the costs of production. In
our home trade there do not exist the two aspects as you
understand them. We sell some goods at prices exceeding
their cost of production. But some goods are sold below
the cost of production. They are sold at a loss but their
production is necessary from the point of view of the devel-
opment of our country's economic potential. The state
uses the funds it receives in the form of extra charges to
subsidize the manufacture of goods with a high cost of
production. Moreover, they help in the accumulation of
funds for the development of our national economy.

Luedicke: But even in these conditions the danger of in-
flationary tendencies may arise.

Khrushchev: There cannot be any inflation in our coun-
try, because in drawing up the budget and production
plans we take into account the sums of money to be paid
in the form of wages and the necessary quantity of goods
to be manufactured in order to maintain the balance be-
tween the amount of money and the stock of manufactured
goods, etc. Thus, in our socialist economy inflation can
only be a result of erroneous calculations in drafting the
plans, in other words, it is impossible.

Ridden Well, that's about all we wanted to ask.

Khrushchov: We were able to meet only on the 22nd of
March. This is the day of spring. It would be gratifying if
you could become the first swallows of spring in business
relations between the Soviet Union and the United States
of America, so that trade might develop on a more exten-
sive scale and all the talk of military preparations and
about who has more rockets, bombs and other means of
annihilating people could stop. The war preparations dis-
tress and horrify people. The nations do not want war. It
would be much better if we adopted different attitudes in
our relations, and talked about the number of machines
and other goods you could sell us and the quantity of
machines and raw materials you could buy from us. Is
that a bad objective?

228

We are in favour of visits by more American manufac-
turers and businessmen whom we could acquaint with our
production, and of visits to the U.S.A. by our workers in
the field of industrial production. This would be useful for
the peoples of the Soviet Union and the United States of
America. People are indeed tired of reports about rockets,
hydrogen and atomic explosions, and bombers.

Our sincere desire is that your visit to our country — a
visit by the representatives of the most far-sighted Amer-
ican business circles — should serve as a starting-point
for good and friendly relations with the United States of
America. We could only welcome this.

Ridden Mr. Khrushchov, from my very heart I wish to
thank you for your courtesy, for having received us, for the
wonderful talk we have had. Naturally, we fully agree with
you. As to the trade problems, let us hope this interview
will serve to improve relations between our 'Countries and to
reach the objective of which you spoke with such sincerity.

Khrushchov: I am glad to hear this from you and I hope
we shall achieve this, for it is in the interests of both our
countries and of both our peoples. I should like only to
draw your attention to the fact that our policy is some-
times misinterpreted in the West. When we say that we
support peaceful co-existence and that we are for devel-
oping trade with Western countries, certain bourgeois
spokesmen begin for the sake of their own political pur-
poses to allege that a critical situation has arisen in the
Soviet Union which impells it to make declarations of this
sort.

I can in all sincerity assure you that the state of affairs
in our country is such that we should like to see it continue
in the same way; our country is continuously making rapid
progress. If we were to picture the economic development
of the Soviet Union graphically, the curve would show a
steady rise. We want only one thing— to live in peace with
all countries, including the U.S.A., and to prevent
another war.

229

You have your political system and we have ours. But
that should not prevent our countries from living in peace,
coexisting and maintaining good business ties. The question
of the internal system of a country, ideological questions —
this is a matter of domestic concern for the people of each
country, whereas questions of developing normal relations
between countries are matters of mutual benefit to all
peoples. There is no life without the development of econ-
omy, and normal business relations between states con-
tribute to the development of their economy.

We should like you to understand us correctly; we pro-
ceed not only from the interests of our country and our
people, but also from the interests of all countries and all
peoples who want to live in peace and friendship and who
want to eliminate the possibility of another war. Trade is
the most reliable guarantee for the development and con-
solidation of business ties between countries.

We are confident that if trade between our countries is
expanded it will be followed by a wider exchange of vari-
ous delegations. If at the first stage of negotiations we
fail to agree on the liquidation of military bases and all
sorts of installations serving military purposes, then with
the development of trade and the expansion of business
contacts military bases and airfields will gradually over-
grow with grass, for they will lose their significance. And
then we shall indeed secure peace throughout the world,
we shall secure, as we call it briefly, peaceful co-existence.

Ridden With those words you have given us the head-
line for our article on this interview.

Khrushchov: I am very glad to hear that, because it
shows that on this point you are of the same opinion.

Ridder: Undoubtedly.

Messrs. Ridder and Luedicke once again thanked
N. S. Khrushchov for the interview and took their leave.

International Affairs, No. 5, 1958

REPLIES

TO QUESTIONS PUT BY GIUSEPPE PALOZZI,

IL TEMPO CORRESPONDENT

March 24, 1958

Giuseppe Palozzi, special correspondent of the Italian
paper, // Tempo, requested N. S. Khrushchov, First Secre-
tary of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U., to answer a
number of questions. On March 24, N. S. Khrushchov re-
ceived Giuseppe Palozzi.

Below we print Palozzi's questions and Khrushchov's
answers.

Palozzi: I am very glad to meet you, for I have very
much wanted to do so. With your permission I should like
to ask a number of questions.

Khrushchov: Please do.

Palozzi: In your speech at the Sports Palace on March
14, you stated that there was a possibility of improving
relations with my country. What would be the attitude of
the U.S.S.R. to Italy if she, like Sweden, for example, were
to adopt a position of neutrality between the two blocs, or
if, like Switzerland and Austria, she proclaimed her neu-
trality?

Khrushchov: The policy of a country, its relations with
other countries, and its attitude on major international
problems are the sovereign affairs of each country. How-
ever, nowadays there is not, nor can there be, a single
country that is indifferent to the future development of in-
ternational relations: along the road of easing internation-
al

al tension and strengthening peace, or along the road of
increasing tension, continuing the cold war and the
arms race that is bringing the world nearer to war. The
Italian people, too, it seems to me, are not indifferent to
the fate of the world, for they have their strong freedom-
loving traditions and a profound interest in preserving
peace and normal, healthy relations among all states, ir-
respective of their social and state systems.

Italy and her Government, of course, know better what
line to choose in the present situation, but, as far as one
can judge, Italy's membership in the North Atlantic bloc
is giving rise to justified apprehension among the broadest
sections of the Italian people, because this membership
reduces Italy's possibilities and ties her to a definite poli-
cy with no favourable prospects for her future. One cannot
shut one's eyes to the fact that Italy's membership in
NATO is increasingly transforming her from an important
factor in international affairs into an object of a policy
alien to her.

Is this not shown by the fact that in peacetime, in the
absence of any real threat to Italy's security from her
neighbours or any other European countries, American
nuclear bases have been set up on Italian territory? Italy
does not control these bases and they do not help to
strengthen Italy's security but to weaken it, since these
bases may become a means of attack on other countries
without Italy's knowledge. And this will draw Italy into
actions imperilling her future. Moreover, the danger to
Italy is increased by the fact that in addition to the bases
already existing, the attempt is being made to impose
upon her the construction of launching sites for ballistic
rockets.

Is it surprising that many Italians rightly see in these
bases and rocket launching sites a direct threat to their
country's security? Recently voices have been raised ever
more loudly in Italy, demanding that she be included in
a nuclear-free zone, in other words, demanding Italy's

232

atomic neutrality. At he same time, neutral tendencies in
the broad sense of the term are developing in Italy, which
is evident, among other things, from the way your ques-
tion was presented.

The experience of history teaches us that some states
which in time of war have pursued a policy of neutrality,
or a policy of non-participation in military blocs, have
thereby helped to safeguard the security of the peoples of
their countries and, on the whole, have played a positive
peace-making role. Such a policy is in keeping with the
national interests of these states, enhances their security
and does not draw them into unnecessary useless waste
of their productive forces for military purposes. Such
countries as Switzerland and Sweden, for example, have
already been enjoying the blessings of neutrality for many
decades. A major part in the struggle for peace and se-
curity is played by such states as India, Indonesia, Bur-
ma, the United Arab Republic, Cambodia and other coun-
tries which adhere to a policy of non-participation in mil-
itary blocs. Their attitude evokes understanding and sym-
pathy.

It goes without saying that should Italy choose such a
path, the Soviet Union would regard this decision with
due understanding and respect.

Palozzi: How, in your opinion, could our neutrality be
guaranteed?

Khrushchov: We consider that if a state wants to pursue
a policy of neutrality and non-participation in military
groupings and raises the question of guarantees of its se^
curity, territorial integrity and inviolability, those wishes
should be acceded to by the Powers upon which their ful-
filment depends. It is a fact that the U.S.S.R., together
with the United States, Britain and France, guaranteed
the security of Austria, when she proclaimed her neutral-
ity. These guarantees, in our opinion, could be given in
the event of a state wanting to join an atom-free zone.
Agreement could be reached, for instance, on the Powers

23$

possessing atomic weapons undertaking to respect the
status of the atom-free zone.

Palozzi: What is your opinion on the question of Italy
joining the European Market and Euratom and also of a
Europe united politically and economically?

Khrushchov: Italy, like the other countries which have
joined the so-called Common Market and Euratom, is
hardly likely to reap any tangible benefits from them. An
isolated market of six countries, if it functions as a nar-
row and exclusive economic grouping, will only create
additional difficulties for the co-ordination of all-European
efforts in the economic field.

Let us consider, for example, the utilization of raw ma-
terial, water power and fuel resources. We know that the
West European countries are greatly in need of fuel and
power developments. On an all-European basis there are
sufficient potentialities for building powerful thermal
power stations and hydroelectric stations in countries
which have large fuel and water power resources — natural-
ly with the consent and participation of each of these
countries. On an all-European basis it is also possible to
build oil and gas pipelines and electric power lines.
The same can be said about the utilization of atomic ener-
gy for peaceful purposes. That is why the Soviet Union
stands for economic co-operation on all-European basis.

It is necessary, in our opinion, to follow precisely along
the path of developing extensive and unhampered trade be-
tween all European countries and not confining it within
the bounds of six countries. It would, for instance, be
desirable for all interested European countries to elimi-
nate in trade all kinds of bans and restrictions of a non-
economic nature. Vitally important problems of the eco-
nomic development of the European countries should also
be discussed and settled, not in narrow organizations, but,
say, at annual conferences of representatives of economic
agencies of the European countries.

That is why we regard the establishment of Euratom

and the Common Market of six countries as an artificial
restriction of economic co-operation, all the more so since
the facts show that the Common Market and Euratom are
being used, from the very outset, not so much for economic
purposes as for the arms race and for other purposes not
of a peaceful nature.

Palozzi: At the Geneva Conference on the peaceful uses
of atomic energy in August 1955, the Soviet delegation
declared its readiness to give help to all countries need-
ing it to develop the atomic industry and research con-
nected with it. Is the Soviet Union prepared to give this
help to Italy, and on what terms? And what terms would
be put before us if, for the operation of our industrial
reactors, we needed uranium supplied by the Soviet Union?

Khrushchov: The Soviet Union's attitude on internation-
nal co-operation in the peaceful uses of atomic energy is
well known. Our country takes an active part in the work
of the International Atomic Energy Agency by supplying
other countries with fissionable materials, scientific and
technical information, and in training atomic specialists, etc.

In our opinion it would be useful to establish the co-
operation of all European countries in the development
and use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes. Lastly,
we also consider it necessary to develop bilateral co-opera-
tion in this field. We already have appropriate agree-
ments with a number of countries. We readily share our
experience and our knowledge with these countries, and
help them to organize the use of atomic energy for peace-
ful purposes utilizing their own resources.

Is there any need to say that we give such aid on con-
dition of complete equality between the parties, without
infringing on anyone's sovereignty? In short, we are of
the opinion that no aid should be used for imposing upon
the recipient country military, political, economic or any
other conditions.

Co-operation in the peaceful uses of atomic energy
opens up broad prospects for improving the well-being of

235

the people and will serve the cause of peace. This cannot
be said of the plans now being drawn up for pooling the
efforts of certain European states in the production
of atomic weapons. Those plans serve to intensify the
arms race and increase international tension. Who will
benefit, for example, from the co-operation between West
Germany, France and Italy in the production of atomic
weapons?

The Soviet Union regards with understanding Italy's
striving to use atomic energy for peaceful purposes and is
ready to conclude with her a bilateral agreement on aid
in various fields of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
As regards practical questions concerning such co-opera-
tion, it is obviously too early to talk about them, since the
Italian side has not made any such requests.

Palozzi: Assuming that the present state of crisis in
U.S. economy were to have an unfavourable effect on the
economic and industrial development of my country, espe-
cially in our southern provinces which are now in the
stage of industrialization, would the Soviet Union assist
our economy, and on what terms?

Khrushchov: If necessary, we could share with Italy our
experience in reclaiming and developing the economically
underdeveloped areas of our country. In the past the
Soviet state had had to overcome serious difficulties in
solving the problem of developing the former outskirts of
tsarist Russia. It is no secret to anyone what those areas
were like formerly. Today they are flourishing regions
whose economy is developing actively. Their economic and
cultural level now compares well with the other economic-
ally developed areas of the Soviet Union. We could also
give aid in other forms. Take, for instance, the question
of power sources. New sources of power, atomic installa-
tions in particular, could greatly assist the economic
development of Italy's southern provinces.

It goes without saying that when the Soviet Union ren-
ders aid, that aid has no political strings attached to in-

236

fringe upon the interests and national sovereignty of any-
country.

Palozzi: Do you think that visits and the exchange of
views between Italian and Soviet leaders could promote
rapprochement between our two countries? Do you regard
an exchange of visits between the heads of our two states
as feasible?

Khrushchov: Contacts and meetings between statesmen
on international questions of various kinds are not only
useful but also necessary. They undoubtedly help to
strengthen mutual understanding and confidence. But
meetings of statesmen are beneficial only when both sides
have a desire to meet. It goes without saying that the
side issuing the invitation has to be confident of its accept-
ance by the other side. That is how we understand this
question.

To put it more concretely, we have already had occasion
to express our opinion on the desirability of such a meet-
ing to the Italian Government, but, I repeat, a mutual
desire to meet and find acceptable settlement on questions
of interest to both sides is necessary. The Italian Govern-
ment and Italy's leading circles, however, are not ready
for a meeting. This can probably be attributed to the fact
that Italy has not as yet freed herself from the influence
of other, stronger countries. I am convinced that it would
be useful for the leaders of Italy to visit the Soviet Union,
to see our country, and to establish the necessary busi-
ness and political contacts. This would be of benefit to
both our countries.

Let us wait patiently for better times; events are devel-
oping so that these better times will undoubtedly come.

Palozzi: Last year 13 million tourists visited Italy, and
among them there were only 3,000 Soviet tourists. What is
the reason that the number of Soviet tourists to Italy is
so insignificant? Up to now Soviet tourists have come to
our country only in groups. Why would it not be possible
to increase individual tourist travel, which apart from

237

anything else would help to establish broader contacts
between our two peoples? Would you personally like to
visit Italy as a tourist?

Khrushchov: There are tourists and tourists. One should
not have a stereotyped approach to the tourists of one
country or another. In bourgeois society, in capitalist
countries, tourists are, as a rule, wealthy people who have
capital. They are mostly idle people. It is a fact that Italy
is very beautiful and has many picturesque places. The
Italian people are a people with a high and ancient cul-
ture, famous for their singing. Italy has many remark-
able cultural monuments. Therefore, people naturally like
to go there.

As for our tourists, tourist travel has developed in our
country only in recent years. In our country, the trade
unions are the organizers of tourist travel. Group travel
abroad is the practice in our country, which does not at
all mean that there can be no individual tourist travel.

Moreover, it is necessary to bear in mind that the Soviet
Union has almost the same beautiful natural scenery as
Italy. Have you been to the Crimea?

Palozzi: No, but I would very much like to.

Khrushchov: And have you been in our Transcaucasia?

Palozzi: No. Only in Moscow.

Khrushchov: There you are — you reproach us on the
grounds that our tourists do not travel enough, while you
yourself have not been anywhere except Moscow. Do you
know that people who have been to Italy and the Crimea,
to Sochi, place your beauty spots and ours on a par? All
this should be taken into account in considering how
many tourists come to you from the Soviet Union.

I myself, it is true, have never been there, but people
say that there are places in the Altai Mountains whose
beauty is simply enchanting. Or take Uzbekistan, Kirghi-
zia, Kazakhstan, or other Central Asian republics, and
their cities. I have been there; I have been to Frunze,
Alma-Ata, Tashkent and Stalinabad. They really are places

238

of indescribable beauty. So you see how many places
we have where a man can spend his free time with
pleasure.

Or take the Black Sea shores of the Georgian Repub-
lic— Batumi, Gagra, Sukhumi and other districts. These
are delightful places, which have excellent amenities, and
the scenery there is exceptionally beautiful. I have not
been to Italy, but probably all these places can vie with
Italy as regards the beauty of their scenery.

I'll say nothing about the Far East. But what about
the northern part of our country? It, too, has many charms
of its own. A man's lifetime is not long enough to get to
know well all the beauties of the Soviet Union. But we
don't want to confine ourselves to our own shell.

That is what can be said about tourist travel. I think
that trips by our tourists will go on increasing every
year.

As for me visiting Italy as a tourist, my public posi-
tion does not permit me the free choice of a time for tour-
ist trips, although Italy arouses the very great interest of
all cultured people.

Palozzi: The statement issued by the delegation of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union which recently
visited Italy contains "approval" of the political and
ideological positions of the Italian Communist Party. The
fact that representatives of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union have considered it their duty to proclaim
their confidence in the Italian Communist Party is regard-
ed by a large section of Italian public opinion as proof that
the Italian Communist Party is dependent on the Com-
munist Party of the Soviet Union. How do you assess this
matter?

Khrushchov: I look at it in this way. Certain circles in
Italy are deliberately distorting the statement made by
our delegation that visited Italy. Those circles in Italy
cannot claim priority in this respect, because the ruling-
circles of the United States, which seek to set the Work-
up

ers' and Communist parties at loggerheads, have long
been concocting allegations to the effect that all the Com-
munist parties are subordinate to the Communist Party of
the Soviet Union. That is nonsense. But unfortunately
there are still people who believe this nonsense.

What does the statement of our delegation speak about?
It speaks of a correct understanding of the Marxist-Lenin-
ist theory, about questions of an ideological nature. Marx-
ist-Leninist theory is the banner of the international work-
ing-class movement. That is why each Communist Party,
if it really is a Communist Party, is guided strictly by this
theory. And it is, therefore, natural that when represent-
atives of Communist parties meet, they express their loyal-
ty to the revolutionary ideology — to Marxism-Leninism. We
do t not conceal this.

It is a fact that representatives of Socialist parties of
the European countries often meet; the Socialist parties
are organizationally united, they jointly elaborate ques-
tions of the policy and tactics of the Socialist parties.
This, however, does not give rise to any anxiety among
bourgeois political leaders. They are disturbed by the
ideology of the Communist and Workers' parties and
Marxist-Leninist theory. And this is only to our credit,
because our parties are real representatives of the work-
ing class; they defend the interests of the working class
honestly and to the very end— and not only of their own
countries, but the interests of the working class of all
countries. We are internationalists and must therefore
strengthen in every way the ideological bonds between
the Workers' and Communist parties, and strengthen and
develop proletarian solidarity.

Our political positions are known. We have adhered,
and continue to adhere, to positions of non-interference in
the internal affairs of other countries.

The Italian Communist Party is a very strong party.
It has good, mature cadres who are well versed in ques-
tions of the theory of Marxism-Leninism.

240

Talk about the "dependence" of the Communist and
Workers' parties on the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union is an old and stupid fable.

Palozzi: "Do you consider that a summit meeting could
be held within the next two months or, for the sake of the
appropriate preparations, would it be necessary to wait
until July or August?

Khrushchov: As we see it, a summit meeting could be
held within the next two months, in the sense that there
exists every reason for a summit meeting and an exchange
of views. What is needed is the desire and good will
of the governments of the countries that may participate.
But this meeting will evidently not take place within the
next two months.

Western leaders, and especially those of the United
States, would like to put off the summit meeting as long
as possible. In general one gets the impression that they
do not even want such a meeting. But public opinion in
all countries, including the United States, is demanding
this meeting, which is really needed.

The opponents of a summit meeting, wishing to bury
the very idea of such a meeting, are endeavouring by
means of talk about better preparations for it to drag a de-
cision on this question into labyrinths of verbosity from
which it would be hard to escape. In words they express
their readiness to meet, but actually they are misleading
the public; first they want to put off the meeting and then,
by some means, to provoke a worsening of the situation so
as to find some plausible excuse to prevent the meeting
and continue the cold war.

The position of the Soviet Union has been very clearly
set forth in our documents. We are guided by the interests
of the peoples of all countries— and the peoples want peace,
they want an end to the cold war. They desire normal
relations to develop between countries. We adhere entirely
to such positions and, for our part, are doing, and will do,

241

everything in our power to ensure the strengthening of
world peace.

Public opinion is now exerting strong pressure on its
governments. And the stronger this pressure of public opin-
ion on the governments, the more assurance there will be
that a summit meeting will be held. Questions on which a
decision can be taken in the interests of universal peace
have already become ripe for settlement.

What the questions are on which agreement can be
reached has been stated in well-known documents of the So-
viet Government. We have also said what questions should
not be raised now, as it is clear in advance that no agree-
ment can be reached on them.

Palozzi: One of the questions which caused the fail-
ure of the Geneva Foreign Ministers' Conference in No-
vember 1955 was the question of the reunification of Ger-
many. It seems that at the present time this same question
is an obstacle to a Heads of Government meeting. The
Communist Party of Viet-Nam recently declared its readi-
ness to solve the question of Viet-Nam's unification by free
elections. What is hindering the application of the same
principles to the unification of Germany?

Khrushchov: The point of view of the Soviet Government
on these questions has been expressed many times. I can
reiterate it briefly. In 1954, at the Geneva Conference, at
which the Soviet Union, the Chinese People's Republic,
Britain, France, the United States and other countries
were represented, it was resolved that two years later, that
is in 1956, the population of Viet-Nam should decide the
question of their country's unification by free elections.
Two years have passed, but South Viet-Nam has not recog-
nized the agreements reached at Geneva. It is apparently
not so much a question of the leaders of South Viet-Nam
as it is their advisers. It is known that the chief advisers
in South Viet-Nam are representatives of certain United
States circles.

As regards the German question, the directives to the

242

Foreign Ministers adopted in 1955 at the Geneva Confer-
ence of the Heads of Government of the Four Powers say
that the "settlement of the German question and the re-
unification of Germany by means of free elections shall be
carried out in conformity with the national interests o'
the German people and the interests of European security."
And it should be noted that the participants in the confer-
ence arrived at that formula after heated debates, be-
cause we considered it more correct to solve the question
of European security without linking it with the German
question, whereas our partners in the talks insisted on the
need to solve the German question first.

At the concluding session we made a statement on be-
half of the Soviet Union in which we set forth what we
considered to be the most rational way of solving the Ger-
man problem. We stated that this problem should not be
solved in the way interpreted by the West. We said that the
solution of the German problem should be found through
agreement between the two German states, that is, between
the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic
of Germany. We expressed the same view in Berlin as well,
when the Soviet delegation was returning to Moscow from
Geneva.

Our attitude on the German question is clear and def-
inite. Some prominent Western leaders, however, are dis-
torting it, pursuing their own unsavoury ends. They allege
that the Soviet Government does not carry out its commit-
ments. The fact is, however, that at Geneva, the Soviet
Union did not commit itself to the unification of Germany
by free elections, as Mr. Dulles and others now make out.
Thus the ruling circles of the United States have two
approaches: one approach to the question of uniting Viet-
Nam by free elections on which agreement was reached,
and the other approach to the question of reunifying Ger-
many, on which there is no agreement.

The fact that there are now two sovereign independent
German states is indisputable. By what right do those lead-

243

ers, ignoring the will of these states, want to solve the
German problem? That would be a gross violation of the
basic principles underlying our relations with all independ-
ent states.

Palozzi: I followed with great interest the election
campaign in the Soviet Union and visited many polling
centres to see how the voting was proceeding. Your
electoral system differs from the system in the Western
countries, and for that reason I take the liberty of asking
you to give me some explanations. In Italy, for example,
it is the practice that members of the Government, on the
expiry of Parliament's term of office, nominate them-
selves as candidates for election. In the Soviet Union, on
the contrary, I noticed that some of the Ministers in the
Government as at present composed did not stand as can-
didates in the elections to the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet,
while other Ministers were elected as Deputies to the Su-
preme Soviet. Does this mean that those Ministers not
elected to the Supreme Soviet want to retire from active
political life?

Khrushchov: Not at all. The fact that some Ministers
were not elected as Deputies to the U.S.S.R. Supreme So-
viet does not at all mean that they are retiring from po-
litical activity.

You rightly say that our electoral system differs from
that of the Western countries. The people elect to the
U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet representatives of all sections
of our society — workers, collective farmers and intellec-
tuals— who are capable of worthily expressing the will
of the people. When candidates for the Supreme Soviet
are nominated at factories, mills, collective farms, state
farms, offices, educational establishments and in army
units, the question of who will best justify the trust of
the people, the trust of their electors in the supreme or-
gan of power of the Soviet Union is widely discussed by
the electorate. Our electors nominate to the U.S.S.R. Su-
preme Soviet as many candidates as possible who work

244

directly in factories, mills, collective farms, state farms
and scientific and other institutions, and who are serving
in the army and navy. Our society is growing, bringing
to the fore its young forces, who are working shoulder
to shoulder with the experienced personnel, accomplish-
ing the great tasks confronting our country. All the activ-
ities of the Soviet people are guided by the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union, which enjoys the tremendous
confidence of all our people and is inseparable from them.
The Party sees to it that both young and the old person-
nel work in the various branches of our economy and
culture and hold particular posts in accordance with their
abilities. And if they work well, the people will always
appreciate them highly. Renewal, the promotion of new per-
sonnel, is going on constantly in socialist society. The en-
listment in state activities of the new, mature forces
which our socialist society is continuously producing, is
helping us to cope with the most complicated and impor-
tant tasks in building communism.

Palozzi: During his latest visit to Washington our For-
eign Minister Pella put forward a plan for establishing
peace in the Middle East. What do you think of this
plan?

Khrushchov: As far as can be judged from press re-
ports, Pella's proposal is that a group of West European
countries set up some kind of fund for economic aid to
Middle Eastern countries. In itself, the idea of giving
assistance to Middle Eastern countries merits attention.
But won't the implementation of this proposal result in
the establishment of an exclusive group of countries with
the participation of active supporters of a colonialist pol-
icy? It is not difficult to see that with such a composition
the activities of this group would be aimed not so much
at advancing the economy of the Middle Eastern coun-
tries as at further worsening the situation in that area.
There are scarcely any grounds for believing that the
Powers pursuing a colonialist policy will abandon their

245

old schemes to secure domination in the Middle East if
they unite in one group.

The Soviet Union considers it possible and desirable
to give assistance to the underdeveloped countries, in-
cluding the countries of the Middle East. The U.S.S.R.
supported the proposal for the establishment of a special
United Nations fund to finance the economic development
of the underdeveloped countries and is ready to take part
in founding this fund by making its contributions.

The United States, however, opposed the foundation of
such a fund for the economic development of the under-
developed countries under the aegis of the United Na-
tions, evidently considering it more advantageous to grant
credits to the underdeveloped countries through those
financial organizations in which the United States is the
complete master, and on terms which it itself dictates.
Nor does the U.S.S.R. object to rendering assistance on
a regional basis. Why, for example, should not all Euro-
pean countries, the East European countries included, and
not a narrow group of states, reach understanding among
themselves about rendering aid to the Middle Eastern
countries and to other underdeveloped countries, provid-
ed, of course, that this assistance is not used to inter-
fere in the domestic affairs of these countries?

Palozzi: What can you say about Soviet "nationalism,"
that is, about the certain disdain shown by Soviet people
to foreigners from "second-rate" countries, and particu-
larly to Italians?

Khrushchov: Frankly speaking, I do not understand the
very formulation of such a question. Could such a ques-
tion seriously arise in your mind? It is generally known
that any manifestation of nationalism is alien to Soviet
men and women, because we proceed from respect for the
rights and dignity of all peoples, both great and small.
Soviet men and women do not divide countries and peo-
ples into "first-rate" and "second-rate." The Soviet Union
itself is a multi-national state, all of whose peoples, great

246

and small, are equal and united on the basis of frater-
nal friendship and mutual respect. It is well known that
the capitalist world has a division of countries into "first-
rate" and "second-rate," but we do not recognize such a
division.

As for the Italian people, it is well known that the peo-
ples of the Soviet Union have always entertained for
them feelings of deep and sincere respect and sympathy,
and continue to do so. Therefore, I think, to speak even
in the form of a question about some kind of "disdain"
on the part of Soviet men and women towards the Italian
people would be a very crude distortion of the real state
of affairs.

We should like to have the best relations with Italy,
with the Italian people, with the Italian Government. But
unfortunately the Italian Government is pursuing a pol-
icy which prevents the establishment of friendly relations
between our countries. Time, however, marches on, and
events are changing. We believe that, if not now, then in
the near future, good relations will be established be-
tween our countries. This would be beneficial both for the
Soviet Union and for Italy.
Pravda, April 2, 1958

SPEECH
AT BUDAPEST AIRPORT ON ARRIVAL OF
SOVIET PARTY AND GOVERNMENT DELEGATION
IN HUNGARY

April 2, 1958

Dear Comrade Kadar,

Dear Comrade Dobi,

Dear Comrade Munnich,

Dear comrades and friends, esteemed citizens of Buda-
pest, splendid capital of the Hungarian People's Repub-
lic, it is with deep feeling that we step on your soil today. In
these first few minutes of meeting you, our Hungarian
friends, we perform the bidding we have received and
convey to you and all the working people of Hungary the
profound, heartfelt, fraternal greetings of the Soviet
people.

The peoples of the Soviet Union are firmly convinced
that in the workers, peasants and intellectuals, in all the
working people of Hungary, they have loyal fellow-fight-
ers for peace, freedom, happiness and a better future for
our peoples.

The Central Committee of the Hungarian Socialist
Workers' Party and the Revolutionary Workers' and Peas-
ants' Government have invited the Soviet Party and Gov-
ernment delegation to visit your country. From the bot-
tom of our hearts we say to you, dear comrades: our heart-
iest thanks for your invitation.

It is always a pleasure to meet friends. But it is partic*

248

ularly gratifying to meet you now, these spring days,
when the Hungarian people celebrate an auspicious date
in the life of their republic — the thirteenth anniversary
of the country's liberation from the yoke of Hitler invad-
ers and the fascist Horthy regime.

We are very happy to join in your celebrations of this
signal holiday of the Hungarian people.

We make no secret of the fact that we are deeply moved
by this extremely cordial, friendly welcome accorded
to us, representatives of the Soviet people. Thank you
very much, dear comrades, for your kind hospitality.

Your welcome speaks more eloquently than words of
the good friendship which the Hungarian people have
for the peoples of the Soviet Union.

We are profoundly grateful for the warmth with which
the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Hun-
garian Socialist Workers' Party, our dear Comrade Janos
Kadar, referred here to the Soviet Union.

Last year the Soviet people received as their most wel-
come friends the representatives of the Hungarian peo-
ple—the Party and Government delegation of the Hun-
garian People's Republic. At that time we thoroughly dis-
cussed with your leaders many questions concerning the
further development of friendly relations between our
countries and a number of questions related to the inter-
national situation. On March 28, 1957, we adopted a Joint
Declaration, which was an important milestone along the
road to greater friendship between the Soviet and Hun-
garian people.

Only a year has elapsed since then. But many good
and important developments have taken place during
these twelve months in our countries. Our friendship has
grown stronger still. Our economic, political and cultur-
al connections have expanded greatly. In spite of subver-
sive enemy activity that sought to destroy, or at least
weaken, the friendship of our peoples by provocations
and conspiracies, the fraternal co-operation between the

249

Soviet Union and the Hungarian People's Republic has
been greatly extended.

The relations between the Soviet Union and the Hunga-
rian People's Republic, and between all the socialist coun-
tries, are those of very close friends brought together
by identical interests, a single ideology, and a common
ultimate goal in the struggle for socialism and communism.
Never will anyone succeed in shaking this unity and sol-
idarity of our countries.

Imperialist exertions are opposed by the enduring sol-
idarity and unity of all the countries of the socialist
camp. We may say for certain that as long as we are
united and of a single mind, we have nothing to fear
from enemy intrigues. This is why we shall continue to
cherish our unity as the apple of our eye, to rally our
ranks closer and strengthen our friendship and fraternal
co-operation.

The Soviet people are well aware of the progress
made by Hungary's working people under the leadership
of the Socialist Workers' Party and the Revolutionary
Workers' and Peasants' Government in building the new
life. We rejoice with you at these successes and assure
you that in the Soviet Union and in the other socialist
countries you have your most loyal and reliable friends.
From the bottom of our hearts, dear comrades, we
wish you new successes in building a socialist Hungary!
Allow me to express our trust that the stay of our del-
egation in your country will be a fresh step towards ce-
menting the fraternal friendship of the Soviet Union and
the Hungarian People's Republic, and that it will help to
consolidate world peace.

Long live the Hungarian People's Republic!
Let the inviolable friendship of the Hungarian and So-
viet peoples grow stronger and flourish!

(N. S. Khrushchov's speech was repeatedly interrupted
by stormy applause and shouts of welcome.)

SPEECH
AT MEETING IN BUDAPEST IN CELEBRATION OF
13th ANNIVERSARY OF HUNGARY'S LIBERATION

April 3, 1958

Dear Comrade Kadar,

Dear Comrade Dobi,

Dear Comrade Munnich,

Dear Comrades and Friends,

To begin with, allow me to thank you heartily for the
opportunity of speaking at this celebration of the 13th an-
niversary of Hungary's liberation from the Hitler fascists
and their Horthy mercenaries.

We, members of the Party and Government delega-
tion, are deeply touched by the warm and friendly words
addressed in his report by Comrade Ferenc Munnich to
the Soviet Union, our people, and our Communist Party.
Permit me to express our heartfelt thanks for your high
appreciation of our efforts.

We are well aware that the warm cordiality and hos-
pitality which you have extended to our delegation from
the moment it stepped on Hungarian soil are, above all,
an expression of the friendly sentiments which the work-
ing people of Hungary have for the Soviet people. We as-
sure you that the Soviet people have the same live sen-
timents of fraternal love and friendship for the people of
Hungary.

On behalf and on the instructions of the Central Com-
mittee of the C.P.S.U., the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R.

251

and the Soviet Government, on behalf of the entire So-
viet people, I congratulate you heartily, dear comrades,
and with you all the Hungarian working people, on this
national holiday of the Hungarian People's Republic. The
Soviet people sincerely wish you further successes in
your grand cause of building socialism, in your struggle
for peace and for the security and independence of your
fine country.

We have come to your country on a return visit at the
kind invitation of the Central Committee of the Hunga-
rian Socialist Workers' Party and the Hungarian Revo-
lutionary Workers' and Peasants' Government to get a
better idea of the life and daily labours of the gifted and
hard-working Hungarian people. We sincerely hope that
our visit will serve to extend and consolidate further the
existing friendly relations of our peoples.

Enemies of the Soviet and Hungarian peoples are try-
ing with sinister purpose to persuade the gullible that the
history of Russo-Hungarian relations is the history of
Austria-Hungary's part in the war of the Triple Alliance
against Russia, or the participation of tsarist troops in
the suppression of the revolution in Hungary in 1848-49
But that is a stupid and very primitive lie. They resort
to fraud in their efforts to pass off relations between the gov-
erning exploiter classes of our countries in the past as re-
lations between our peoples. Yet these are different things.
Anyone with the slightest knowledge of history, who does
not wish to distort it, knows full well what great sym-
pathy our peoples have always had for each other.

When in 1917 the working class, the working people of
our country threw off the hated yoke of tsarism and then
accomplished the Great October Socialist Revolution,
which ushered in a new era for mankind, the working
class, the working people of Hungary enthusiastically
supported the young Soviet Republic.

The Soviet people will never forget the fraternal as-
sistance of the Hungarian toilers, who fought heroically

252

shoulder to shoulder with the Russian proletariat and
toiling peasantry for the triumph of the gains of the Oc-
tober Revolution. Tens of thousands of our Hungarian
brothers fought our country's enemies in the Civil War.
We are deeply grateful to them, to the Hungarian work-
ing class, to your people, for having raised such indom-
itable and gallant fighters, such true proletarian interna-
tionalists, as Tibor Szamuelly, Bel a Kun and our front-
line comrade and friend Ferenc Miinnich, who is with us
here today.

Dear comrades, the Hungarian working class, which
has known the hard lot of oppression, has always marched
in the militant ranks of the international revolutionary
movement. Here in Budapest, the Red Banner of workers'
and peasants' rule was raised 39 years ago.

We, people of the older generation, remember clearly
the enthusiasm roused in Russia and among working
people throughout the world by the news that a Soviet
Republic had been proclaimed in Hungary. Great Lenin
wrote at the time that the news from Hungary "fill us
with delight and joy," that they testified to "our moral
victory." The example of the Hungarian workers was
vivid proof of the all-conquering force of Marxist-Lenin-
ist ideas, proof of the international nature of the Great
October Socialist Revolution.

In an ardent address to the Hungarian workers, Lenin
wrote:

"You are waging the only legitimate, just and truly
revolutionary war, a war of the oppressed against the op-
pressors, a war of the working people against the exploit-
ers, a war for the victory of socialism. All honest mem-
bers of the working class all over the world are on vour
side." J

The forces of reaction, of international imperialism,
succeeded at the time in crushing the Hungarian Soviet
Republic. The counter-revolution wreaked brutal ven-
geance upon the Hungarian freedom fighters: tens of

253

thousands of Hungary's loyal sons were murdered and
70,000 thrown into prison. The oppressors of the Hunga-
rian people expunged with fire and sword its age-long
yearning for a free life without capitalists and landlords.
The factories and mills were returned to the capitalists,
and the land to the landlords. A gloomy period of reac-
tionary fascist rule set in for Hungary.

But the torch of socialist ideas burned on in the hearts
of the Hungarian workers, peasants and progressive in-
tellectuals. No fascist brutalities could suppress the Hun-
garian people's longing for freedom, for liberation from
the capitalist yoke and the hateful chains of fascism. The
flames of the liberation struggle shot up brightly in April
1945 when, as a result of the victories of the Soviet
Army, the Hungarian people won the opportunity of over-
throwing the hated Horthy regime and the blood-stained
fascist dictatorship— the opportunity of taking power into
their own hands, of winning at last their long-awaited
freedom and independence.

When the Soviet Army marched westwards, the heroes
of Stalingrad remembered the heroes of the Hungarian
revolution of 1848-49, the glorious Hungarian revolution
of 1919, the working people of Hungary and other coun-
tries trampled underfoot by the German-fascist occupation-
ists.

Soviet soldiers did not spare their blood, and life it-
self, in striking out against the fascist oppressors and
hastening to the aid of nations racked by Hitler slavery.
One of the biggest battles for the future, for the work-
ing man's happiness, unfolded in the Hungarian plains,
on the banks of the Danube and Tisza, and here, at the
walls of Budapest. Tens of thousands of Soviet people
gave their lives for the freedom of the Hungarian people.

The blood shed by our peoples in the joint struggle
against fascism has sealed our friendship for all time.

After taking the road of socialist construction, liberat-
ed Hungary has in a short time made a giant leap for-

254

ward both in industrial production and in improving the
living and cultural standards of the population, and in
the cultural revolution which flung open the door to
science and knowledge for the Hungarian worker and
peasant.

The enemies of socialism are foaming with rage over
the successes of the working people in the socialist coun-
tries. They are doing their worst to harm the people and
to hinder the people's effort of building a new, socialist
life. That they do not even conceal their intentions bares
the full extent of their cynicism. You know very well,
comrades, that the rulers of some capitalist countries al-
lot huge funds for subversive activities in the socialist
countries, announce frankly hostile plans of overthrowing
the people's democracies and restoring capitalist regimes'

They had the same insidious designs with regard to
the Hungarian People's Republic. Making the most of
the mistakes and distortions of the former leadership in
Hungary, the imperialists in October-November 1956 set
in motion their criminal machine. The domestic reaction-
ary forces in Hungary, inspired and organized from
abroad, staged a fascist uprising. They exploited all pos-
sible means to deceive the people.

The embittered scum of the defeated exploiter classes
swarmed into Hungary like a flock of black crows. Ene-
mies of people's democracy threw off their masks and
crept out of their dens. Criminal elements, released from
places of confinement, joined hands with the enemy
forces.

The socialist gains of the Hungarian working people
were in great danger. And in those October and November
days of 1956 the Hungarian people demonstrated their
high revolutionary maturity and their ability to defend
the great achievements of people's democracy under the
leadership of the Hungarian Communists.

Naturally, we cannot be blind to the fact that a cer-
tain section of the working people, especially among the

255

intellectuals, were taken in by spurious slogans— were
deceived and misled. If our enemies were stupid, it
would be easier for the people to fight them. But
they are crafty and insidious. They do not betray their
true intentions at the start. They conceal them. To make
their anti-popular handiwork easier, they hide from the
people behind high-sounding phrases about "freedom"
and "democracy."

But the Hungarian people did not follow the wretched
handful of renegades. The conspirators found themselves
isolated from the people.

Our antagonists hoped to destroy, or at least weaken,
the bonds of close fraternal friendship that hold togeth-
er the people of the socialist countries. The October-Novem-
ber events in Hungary had been a crucial test of So-
viet-Hungarian friendship. It may be said without exag-
geration that the whole world had watched tensely what
the Soviet Union would do when the forces of internation-
al and domestic reaction unleashed their open and bra-
zen attack against one of the links of the united socialist
camp.

The Soviet Union, the Soviet people, could not look on
indifferently at the fate of a friend in trouble, at the fate
of millions of Hungarian working people facing the dan-
ger of again falling under the yoke of landlord and cap-
italist exploitation. Faithful to its fraternal duty and guided
by a profound sense of genuine proletarian internationalism,
the Soviet Union could not but respond to the appeal of the
Hungarian Government and come to the assistance of
the Hungarian people.

Soviet-Hungarian friendship has not only withstood
the onslaught of the reactionaries; it has been further
cemented and strengthened, and now no exertions of the
enemy can destroy it, however much imperialist reaction
may rave and rant.

By helping the Hungarian people to crush the counter-
revolutionary revolt we have prevented the enemy from

256

impairing the unity of the entire socialist camp, rigorously
tested during the Hungarian events. We were aware that
by helping Hungary to suppress the uprising and elimi-
nate its aftermath as quickly as possible we were also
helping all the other countries of the socialist camp. All
of you know that the help we gave the Hungarian people
in crushing the counter-revolution was approved unani-
mously by the working people in the socialist countries,
by all progressives throughout the world.

The working people of the socialist countries and their
Communist and Workers* parties know full well that the
social gains of the peoples, their national independ-
ence, are guaranteed only as long as the socialist coun-
tries stand solid and united.

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union sees its prime
obligation and international duty in tirelessly strength-
ening and extending political, economic and cultur-
al ties with all socialist countries along the Leninist
principles of equality, fraternal co-operation and mutual
confidence.

Dear comrades, the report of Comrade Ferenc Munnich
gives a convincing picture of the recent successes achieved
by the Hungarian people. The working people of Hun-
gary have in a short time made striking progress in
strengthening their system of people's democracy. This
is evidence of the great life-giving force of the political
and social system in the Hungarian People's Republic.
The political and economic situation inside Hungary is
becoming more and more solid. The prestige of the Hun-
garian People's Republic in the international scene is
rising steadily. The Hungarian people are confidently
getting into their stride, carrying on firmly along the path
of social development, which they have taken 13 years ago.

The achievements of the Hungarian people in social-
ist construction are the best possible illustration of the
mood of Hungary's working masses, of their solidarity
with the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party, the Revo-

257

lutionary Workers' and Peasants' Government, of their
loyalty to the system of people's democracy.

It is primarily to the skilful leadership of the Hungar-
ian Socialist Workers' Party and its Central Committee
that the Hungarian people owe all their successes. It is
no wonder that the enemy has always directed— and still
directs— its main effort against the working-class party.
The plan of the reactionaries is obvious. They want to
deprive the Hungarian working class, the working peo-
ple of Hungary, of their vanguard, their advance detach-
ment. Now the Party has been reconstituted and stands
unflinchingly at the head of the masses. The skilful lead-
ership of the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party is a
guarantee of successful socialist construction in your
country.

In reviving their Party, the Hungarian Communists had
to surmount big difficulties springing from the revision-
ist tendencies within the now reorganized Hungarian
Working People's Party and the sectarian, dogmatic mis-
takes of its former leadership, its loss of due flexibility
and ability to properly evaluate the situation, its hes-
itation and vacillation in enforcing the Party line.

By virtue of the skilful policy of the Hungarian So-
cialist Workers' Party, of its Central Committee headed by
that outstanding leader of the Hungarian working-class
movement Comrade Janos Kadar with his splendid quali-
ties of fighter and leader, the influence of the Party in the
people has been restored. Its policy now enjoys the active
support of the working people of Hungary.

And that, after all, is the most important thing. The pol-
icy of a people's government, the policy of a Marxist-
Leninist party, must always conform with the interests of
the working class, the interests of the working people; it
must always strengthen the system of people's democracy
and work for improving the life of the masses. A policy
like that will always have the support of the people.

The Patriotic People's Front, a broadly representative

258

mass organization with a membership of millions of Hun-
garian working people, is doing much valuable work to
rally the country's progressive forces and cement the alli-
ance of the working class and the working peasantry. The
solidarity of the Patriotic People's Front embodies the
militant unity of Hungary's working people with the Hun-
garian Socialist Workers' Party, with the Government of
People's Hungary.

We wish the Patriotic People's Front of Hungary and
its leadership new successes in their activities for the good
of the people, and for peace and socialism.

Comrades, we know that you have many difficulties. The
survivals of capitalism are known to linger in men's minds,
particularly when bearers of capitalist tendencies, repre-
sentatives of the former ruling classes, are still alive. It is
the same in your country, in Hungary.

It is impossible to expect everybody to be pleased with
the policy of the Party. Some people, especially those
who lost their highly profitable mills and factories and their
trading and other establishments when power passed into
the hands of the people, are unquestionably at odds with
the people's power, with its policy. It is not their
government, after all. The days of their reign are over, and
for good. Today power in Hungary belongs to the
people, the working people, and not to those who rode the
people, who exploited them ruthlessly for their own enrich-
ment.

The people in the socialist countries have convinced
themselves sufficiently well by their own experience that
only the socialist system is capable of providing for the
full and all-round advancement of their material and spir-
itual forces. The achievements of the socialist countries
in peaceful creative labour, in raising the living standard
of the population, in developing science and culture, are
vivid proof that the policy of parties guided in their activ-
ities by the immortal ideas of Marxism-Leninism, is the
correct policy.

259

Take our country, for example. People of the older gen-
eration here in Hungary probably remember how backward
and weak Russia's national economy was on the eve of
the First World War.

The First World War, and the imperialist intervention
that followed the October Revolution of 1917, brought our
country to almost complete ruin. Steel production, for ex-
ample, amounted to just 200,000 tons in 1920. Today, the
Soviet Union produces that much steel in less than two
days. In 1917 Russia's share in the world industrial out-
put was just 2 or 3 per cent, while today the Soviet Union
produces one-fifth of the total world industrial output.

Thanks to the socialist transformations worked by the
Soviet people, our country has now outstripped all, even
the most industrially developed countries of Europe, whose
economies were formerly incomparably more advanced
than the industry and agriculture of tsarist Russia.

The industry and agriculture, the national economy of
the Soviet Union, is very much on the upgrade. The whole
world knows also of the remarkable progress our country
has made in developing science, technology and culture.
We have every right to be proud that the world's first artifi-
cial earth satellites were made in the Soviet Union. They
signalize a new stage in man's knowledge of the Universe.

Today the Soviet people are going well ahead with the
task of overtaking and surpassing U.S. output of key in-
dustrial items within the shortest possible historical time.

The most important problem of industrial development—
that of the rate of growth of production — is long since set-
tled in favour of the U.S.S.R. Between 1929 and 1956, ex-
cluding the years of the Second World War, the average
annual growth of Soviet industrial production amounted to
over 16 per cent. In the United States the average growth
of industrial production over the same period was each
year less than three per cent.

Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that the Soviet
economy, like that of all socialist countries, is rid of crises

260

and mass unemployment, those inevitable companions of
capitalism. Soviet industrial development is continuously
on the upgrade.

Soviet people never rest on what they have already
achieved. They never fail to find fresh resources for the
continued expansion of the country's economy. This aim
has been well served by last year's reorganization of man-
agement in industry and building, the current reorgani-
zation of the machine and tractor stations, and by other
measures taken by our Party and the Soviet Government
for the further advancement of industrial and agricultural
production.

The Soviet people are confident that in the very near
future our country will, not only catch up, but outstrip the
United States economically. The new and progressive al-
ways triumphs over the old and decadent. Such is the re-
lentless law of social development.

The entire policy of the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union, all its practical efforts, are aimed at improving the
living conditions of workers, collective farmers and the
intelligentsia year after year so our country is immersed
in the magnificent flowers of joy, happiness, and confidence
in the future. We have no use for wars of conquest, for
interference in the affairs of other countries and peoples,
nor for the state of cold war, hostility and mistrust.

One need not be a scientist or military man to under-
stand that another war— should any criminal force start
it— would be a calamity to all mankind. We share this
planet with the capitalist countries, and it is better that
there should be no war. We do not say this from weakness.
We believe firmly that if there is a military conflict the
socialist system will win out, while the capitalist system
will fail to survive the terrible ordeal. But Communists
do not want their ideas to triumph at the price of tens
or millions of human lives. The socialist countries do not
wish to force their system on any nation. We are deeply
convinced that the advantages of socialism will unfold

261

most effectively in peaceful competition with capitalism.
The Soviet Union offers the capitalist countries to com-
pete in raising living standards rather than in the arms
race, in building dwellings and schools rather than mili-
tary'bases and rocket ramps, in extending reciprocal
trade and cultural exchanges rather than in the cold
war.

In our time there is no other sensible policy but that
of peaceful co-existence, of reasonable compromise which
does not place any country at an advantage and ensures
the security of each state.

Today, the question stands thus: either peaceful co-
existence, or war.

The Soviet Union works untiringly for universal disar-
mament, for the unconditional banning of nuclear weap-
ons, for an immediate discontinuation of atomic and
hydrogen bomb tests, for ending the cold war. As part
of its peace policy, working for an international detente
and an atmosphere of confidence, the Soviet Government
has in the last three years reduced the country's armed
forces by 2,140,000 men.

You know that a few days ago the first session of the
Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. has decided upon the uni-
lateral discontinuation by the Soviet Union of tests of
all types of atomic and hydrogen weapons.

The Soviet Union has applied, and will continue to
apply, every effort to achieve mutual understanding and
friendly relations with the peoples of all countries. We
act upon the assumption that in present circumstances
all governments which appreciate their responsibility for
world destinies, must rise above ideological differences.
In the past three or four years we have achieved some
positive results in that respect.

Regrettably, leading statesmen in a number of West-
ern countries have not as yet shown any desire to adopt
the principles of co-existence, non-aggression, mutual re-
spect of territorial integrity and sovereignty, non-interfer-

262

ence in domestic affairs, and rejection of the policy
"from strength." They take no heed of the people's hatred
of cold war, of their urge for peace and action to relieve
international tension.

The Soviet Union threatens no one. It has always op-
posed war as an instrument of international politics. It
is against carving the world up into military blocs. It
stands for settling international issues by negotiation.
This is precisely why the Soviet Government has ap-
proached the Governments of the Great Powers and the
governments of most countries of the world, with the pro-
posal of convening a summit conference.

At a summit conference statesmen could exchange views
on ways and means of ending the cold war. They could
take initial steps towards resolving pressing internation-
al problems and establishing new, sound relations between
the people of all countries.

Heeding the demand of world opinion, sober-minded
Western politicians approve the idea of settling urgent
problems by peaceful international negotiation Yet the
eye is also drawn to such facts as the series of confer-
ences convened by the military alliances and pacts estab-
lished by the Western Powers to step up the arms race and
bring all the aggressive blocs under a single roof It
should not be left unsaid that in its attempts to obstruct a
meeting at the summit, the U.S. Government is again and
again raising questions which cannot be discussed at con-
ferences of that sort, such as the German question, for
example or the question about the situation in the coun-
tries of Eastern Europe.

ufle.2er^an^qUesti0n is imP°rtant, but it can only be
settled by the Germans themselves-by Germans living in
the Federal Republic of Germany and in the German Dem-
ocratic Republic-without the interference of any other
states in their domestic affairs. Any solution of the German
problem ignoring the wishes of the whole German people,
of the kind suggested by the United States and some oth-

263

er Western countries, will do little to strengthen the peace
in Europe. On the contrary, it will lead to a deterioration
in the situation, and even to war.

As for the so-called question about the situation in the
countries of Eastern Europe, any discussion of it would be
a glaring violation of the elementary rules of international
relations. No member-country of the United Nations could
agree to empowering anyone to discuss questions related
to its political system.

It is perfectly clear that no self-respecting government
of a sovereign country would ever agree to a discussion
of that question. What right have U.S. statesmen to foist
their country's way of life on other countries? The people
of the East European countries have long since decided
what path they should follow, and nobody has the right to
interfere in their domestic affairs. The Soviet Government
has repeatedly stated, and does so now, that it most em-
phatically opposes any discussion of that kind.

What moves the men who raise such questions? They
know perfectly well that these questions cannot be an ob-
ject of discussion, because, in effect, they speak of the abo-
lition of the socialist system, in the People's Democracies
and their return to the capitalist path. To raise these ques-
tions is to lose one's reason. The same could also have been
said about us if, say, we were to demand that the summit
meeting discuss the question of abolishing the capitalist
system wherever it is now extant. The system of govern-
ment is the domestic affair of each nation.

What is the purpose, we ask, for raising these questions?
They are not meant, by any means, to end the cold war,
but rather to add fuel to it, to cause irritation, to further
increase international tension, and thereby to produce an
excuse for wrecking the summit talks.

There is every possibility at a meeting of Heads of Govern-
ment to settle a number of urgent international issues and
end the cold war, so as to ensure normal international
relations based on the principles of peaceful co-existence.

264

Normal relations between states would promote greater
confidence. With time, they could develop into friendly re-
lations and lead to the establishment of lasting world
peace.

All too often Western statesmen speak of their love and
allegiance to peace, while in practice they work in every
way against discussing urgent international questions,
eliminating international tension, and establishing confi-
dence between states. Empty talk about peace, unsupported
by concrete deeds, does little honour to the leading West-
ern statesmen and cannot lull the vigilance of the peace-
loving nations, particularly the peoples of the Soviet Union
and other socialist countries.

Dear comrades, the forces working for peace and inter-
national friendship have grown immeasurably, and conti-
nue to grow. The Peace Manifesto of the Moscow Meet-
ing of Communist and Workers' Parties met with wide
response in all countries. Its call for "peace to the world"
is a genuine token of the hopes and wishes of people all
over the globe. In their van stand the peoples of the Soviet
Union, the Chinese People's Republic, the Hungarian Peo-
ple's Republic and other socialist countries, and also the
Communist and Workers' parties in the capitalist coun-
tries. We must support this powerful movement for peace
in every possible way.

We want all people to live in peace and friendship, with-
out fear for their future. We want the tremendous resources
now being expended on armaments to be spent on pub-
lic welfare, on raising the standard of life, on developing
economy, science, culture and art in every country. We
must work persistently for this goal, and spare no effort
in achieving it. The hard-working Hungarian people doubt-
less wish the same thing.

The Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties of
Socialist Countries pointed out in its Declaration that the
Leninist principle of peaceful co-existence of the two sys-
tems is the solid basis of the foreign policy of the social-

265

ist states and a reliable basis for peace and friendship
among nations.

But to achieve success in this foreign policy, the social-
ist countries must consolidate their ranks still more, and
constantly assist and support one another. At the same
time, the socialist countries must work harder to strength-
en their economic power and step up the rates of their eco-
nomic development. We must improve socialist production
in every way, co-ordinate our economic plans, raise our
productivity of labour, make better use of our resources,
of the achievements of science and technology, and im-
prove the living standard. We must help and support each
other also in these and other political and economic tasks.

The Soviet people regard it as their sacred obligation,
their internationalist duty, to promote in every way the
further consolidation of the socialist camp, to help and
support all the fraternal socialist countries. You may rest
assured, comrades, that the Soviet Union will spare no ef-
fort in strengthening the socialist camp. The Soviet people
have never failed their internationalist duty.

Dear comrades, this visit of our Party and Government
delegation to your fine country comes a year after the
Soviet Union was visited by the Party and Government
delegation of the Hungarian People's Republic. During
their tour of the Soviet Union, your comrades had every
opportunity of seeing how warm and sincere is the friend-
ship and sympathy of the Soviet people for the Hungarian
people.

Although we have come to your country just a few days
ago, the warm and cordial welcome which we receive every-
where from the working people of Hungary adds to our
conviction that our return visit, our meetings with the
working people of your country, will serve to strengthen
our friendly relations still more, and thus to improve
greatly the mutual understanding between our nations, to
cement world peace.

Long live and flourish the Hungarian People's Republic!

266

Long live the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party— the
inspirer and organizer of all the victories of the Hun-
garian people!

Let the unconquerable fraternal friendship of the Hun-
garian and Soviet peoples live and gain strength all the
time!

(N. S. Khrushchov's speech was repeatedly interrupted
by stormy and prolonged applause.)

SPEECH

AT MASS MEETING IN BUDAPEST

DURING STAY IN HUNGARY

OF SOVIET PARTY AND GOVERNMENT DELEGATION

April 4, 1958

Dear Comrade Kadar,

Dear Comrade Dobi,

Dear Comrade Miinnich,

Dear Comrades Marosan and Pongrac,

Citizens of Budapest,

On behalf of the Central Committee of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union, the Council of Ministers and
the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., I
convey to you and to the whole fraternal Hungarian people
heartfelt and friendly greetings from the working people
of the Soviet Union!

We are very pleased and moved by this meeting today
with the working people of Budapest. The Soviet people
know well that Budapest occupies a prominent place in
the history of your country, the centuries of national-liber-
ation struggle waged by the Hungarian people, the heroic
working-class movement.

Forty years ago, a few days after landlord and capital-
ist rule was smashed in Russia, there were stormy demon-
strations and rallies of workers here, in the streets and
squares of Budapest, at which people called out such slo-
gans as "Long Live the Socialist Revolution!", "We Want
Peace! Down with War!"

Right here, at a city-wide Budapest workers' meeting,

268

the following moving resolution was adopted forty years
ago:

"Workers of Budapest and its suburbs, and with them
all the people of the capital, send their fraternal greet-
ings to the Russian revolutionaries who shall with gallant
heart, strong mind and firm hand lead mankind out of the
inferno of war. All of us who are gathered here are deter-
mined to support the Russian revolutionaries in their he-
roic struggle for peace. We shall also fight with all our
strength that the exploitation of one class by another and
the oppression of one nation by another should also cease
in our country!"

Allow me on behalf of the peoples of the Soviet Union
to convey hearty thanks to the workers of Budapest and
all the working people of Hungary for their fraternal sup-
port and assistance to the Great October Socialist Revo-
lution, to our young Soviet Republic.

Comrades, we have come here on a return visit in con-
nection with your national holiday— the day of Hungary's
liberation from the yoke of Hitler fascists and their Horthy
henchmen. Thirteen years ago the glorious armed forces
of the Soviet Union completed the liberation of the terri-
tory of Hungary from German-fascist troops. In stubborn
struggle against the forces of home reaction, warding off
imperialist attempts to interfere in Hungary's affairs, the
working masses won power and established the system of
people's democracy. The working man became complete
master of Hungary.

Thirteen years is not a very long time. Under the cap-
italists and landlords nothing would have changed in the
country's development in 13 years. There would have been
those who would labour to exhaustion, and others who
would live in luxury by other people's exploited labour.

But 13 years of people's rule have transformed your
country. The life of the people has changed radically. Ex-
ploitation of man by man has been wiped out in the "main.
And ihk was achieved despite big difficulties, despite the

269

subversive activities of the enemies of People's Hungary.
Much may be said about the achievements of People's
Hungary. You know them well yourselves.

The antagonists of the Hungarian people do not stop at
gross lies and calumny. They try to deny, or at least belittle,
the major successes scored by Hungary's working peo-
ple in 13 years of people's power. But their exertions are
futile! Nobody will ever succeed in misleading a people
that has won genuine freedom and democracy!

The enemies of socialism lose sleep when a people builds
its life by itself, without capitalists and landlords. Just
look how many times the imperialists made their vicious
onslaughts upon the Soviet Union. But under the leader-
ship of the Communist Party our people have beaten back
all their attacks, have built socialism, and are striding
forward confidently to their lofty goal— communism.

We must keep in mind that the enemy sometimes takes
advantage quite adroitly of the mistakes and shortcomings
of one leader or another to deceive and delude individual
groups of people and, in the ultimate analysis, to defile the
socialist system and undermine the dictatorship of the
working class.

This has happened recently in your country. But what
was the final outcome? The sound forces of the Hunga-
rian people took the upper hand. They rallied round the
Revolutionary Workers' and Peasants' Government and the
Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party, and crushed the up-
rising of forces hostile to the working people. The designs
of the reactionaries fell through completely. It was inevit-
able that they should fall through.

In 1919 international and domestic reaction was still ca-
pable of shedding the blood of Hungary's working men and
crushing the young Hungarian Soviet Republic. But in an
epoch when there exists the mighty socialist camp, the
Hungarian working people could count securely on the
selfless assistance of the other socialist countries. And at
a time of stress they did, indeed, receive such assistance

270

and fraternal support. At the request of your Government,
Soviet troops took a hand in smashing the counter-revo-
lutionary uprising. The danger of the fascist regime being
restored in Hungary, the danger that a new hotbed of war
would arise in the heart of Europe, was squashed by joint
effort.

You may recall the hue and cry raised by international
reaction. Our enemies ranted about the Soviet Army crush-
ing a "popular revolution." What else could one 'expect?
They had to cover up their tracks, to divert attention from
the real instigators of the anti-popular putsch. What kind
of a "popular revolution" was it, indeed, if the fascist
putschists meant to turn the Hungarian workers into hired
slaves and to deprive the peasants of their legitimate
rights to land and to the fruits of their labour. But they
failed.

The Soviet Army helped the Hungarian working people
to defend their gains from the imperialist onslaught and
to rout the handful of rebels who had raised their sword
against popular rule. All honest people, all people the least
bit fair know that the will of the people is sacred to the
Soviet Army, which is flesh of the flesh of the people.

By having given a helping hand to the Hungarian work-
ing people, the Soviet Union performed a supreme act of
proletarian solidarity and done its sacred internationalist
duty by a fraternal country. To perform one's internation-
alist duty means to stand by one's friends in trouble, to
come to their assistance if enemy hosts try to raise their
arm against the most cherished of all— the power of the
workers and peasants.

The imperialists wanted to test the strength of our
ranks, the vigour of our solidarity. What came of it? They
discovered that it did not pay, that one might get burned,
that it is best not to try our patience.

We are confident that the people's power in Hun-
gary, just as in the other socialist countries, stands firm
and will stand for all time!

271

The uprising organized from outside had caused consid-
erable damage to your country. But it could not, natural-
ly, stop— and did not stop— the advance of the Hungarian
People's Republic along the path of socialist construc-
tion.

The main and decisive thing about the successes scored
by the Hungarian People's Republic is that the building of
socialism in Hungary is headed by a battle-steeled Marx-
ist-Leninist Party. The Hungarian working class regards
it by rights as its very own party — a party bound inviol-
ably to the working men, the people.

The Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party is loyal to
Marxism-Leninism, to the idea of fighting for socialism;
it blends its love of country with the idea of proletarian
internationalism. In this lies its great strength, the source
of its achievements.

From the bottom of our hearts we wish the Hungarian
Socialist Workers' Party further successes in its vast and
manifold endeavour.

The future of the socialist countries is in the hands of
the working class, the working people. Having taken pow-
er, these are now the sole and complete masters of their
countries. Socialism ensures high rates of economic de-
velopment in the socialist countries. But to attain them,
we must always lay stress on raising the productivity
of labour on the basis of mechanization and automation
and strive for better organization.

Building socialism, comrades, is not the same as prome-
nading along a trodden path. It involves conquering diffi-
culties, which do not end when the working class comes
to power. We know this well from our own experience. The
new society develops in stubborn struggle with the old
world, which has outlived itself.

We know that you, in Hungary, also have your difficul-
ties, although they are much fewer now than, say, a year
ago. But the socialist system has everything it takes to
conquer these difficulties, to develop all the creative forces

272

of the nation. We are sure that the life of the working
people of Hungary will improve year by year.

Comrades, the swift normalization of the situation in
Hungary is vivid proof that the development of a country
which has taken the socialist path cannot be turned back,
that the unity, solidarity and fraternal mutual assistance
of the socialist countries is an immense force.

In the community of socialist countries every member
strives to help the peoples of the fraternal countries in
building socialism and, in turn, takes strength from their
assistance and support. Mutual assistance does not mean
that some will become. stronger at the expense of others.
It means that each socialist country individually, and the
camp as a whole, will advance steadily and grow stronger.

The consolidation of the socialist camp is having a far-
reaching influence on the entire process of mankind's his-
torical development. Our progress and solidarity, com-
rades, are helping the peaceful democratic forces through-
out the world to combat the threat of war and fight for
democracy and social progress.

Let us go back to the autumn of 1956. It was not mere
chance, at that time, that the imperialists mounted two
attacks simultaneously: one against socialist Hungary and
the other against Egypt, which had won her independence.
They hoped that defeat of the socialist forces in Hungary
and confusion in the socialist camp would help them foist
their will upon Egypt. We all know the outcome of these
imperialist attacks!

The double defeat of the imperialist forces was a turn-
ing-point in the development of the entire international
situation towards a detente. That is the international sig-
nificance behind the victory of the socialist forces in Hun-
gary and the patriotic forces in Egypt. The fighting al-
liance of the two greatest forces of our time— the socialist
countries and the countries which have recently won their
national independence— gained added strength in this joint
stand against the imperialist assault.

273

Comrades, more than 100 years ago the great Hungar-
ian poet, Sandor Petofi, wrote bitterly "We have no broth-
er-people in the world whom we could ask for assistance,
who could help us; we are alone, like a tree in the desert."
Socialism has changed that situation. The Hungarian peo-
ple is an equal brother in the mighty family of nations of
the socialist community.

Hungary's working people know that they can make their
social gains secure solely in fraternal alliance with the
peoples of the other socialist countries.

The world socialist system is getting bigger and strong-
er. Yet there was a time when the Soviet Union was the
only socialist country. Grim ordeals and hardships fell to
the lot of our working class, which was the first in the
world to break with capitalism and boldly blaze the trail
to a new socialist future.

The Soviet people have conquered all difficulties and
scored remarkable successes in industry, agriculture and
their country's economy generally.

They follow confidently the path charted by the 20th
Party Congress, the path of gradual transition from social-
ism to communism, the path of strengthening world peace.
We assure you, comrades, that the Soviet people will spare
no pains in building communism and fighting for peace
and international security.

The Soviet Union is applying tremendous efforts in close
co-operation with the other socialist countries, shoulder to
shoulder with all the peace-loving nations of the world,
to avert a new war. But peace does not come of itself. It
has to be won in persistent and active struggle against the
forces of aggression, war and destruction. Friends of peace
in all countries of the world are coming to appreciate this
fact more and more.

Loyal to its policy of peace, the Soviet Union has lately
made many new constructive proposals and taken a num-
ber of steps to relieve world tension, stop the armaments
race, and ban nuclear weapons. But our proposals have not

274

had a positive response from the ruling circles of the
U.S.A. and the other Western Powers. What is more, they
continue to fan the cold war and carry on with their policy
"from positions of strength." In order to charge the atmos-
phere still more, they are stepping up the arms race and
preparing a nuclear war against the Soviet Union and the
other socialist countries.

Things have gone so far that U.S. aircraft loaded with
atomic and hydrogen bombs make daily flights over the ter-
ritories of many countries. There have even been air ac-
cidents involving such aircraft, but this is being carefully
concealed from the public. Millions of people live in con-
tinuous fear, because some accident or a premeditated
provocation by some maniac may plunge mankind into an
atomic war. Man's common sense protests against this ex-
tremely dangerous situation.

You know that a few days ago the Supreme Soviet of the
U.S.S.R. adopted the decision for our country to unilater-
ally discontinue experimental explosions of atomic and
hydrogen weapons. The Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. has
called on the United States and Britain to follow suit.

This historic decision was acclaimed by people through-
out the world, including America and Britain. Everybody
waited to see how the Government of the United States
would react to it, how the British Government would react,
to see which way the weathercock would turn— towards
enduring peace or greater international tension and con-
tinuation of the arms race. But the armaments race leads
inevitably to a war and not to a peaceful detente.

A few days ago the U.S. President, Mr. Eisenhower, held
a press conference, at which he made a statement with re-
gard to the unilateral discontinuance of atomic and hy-
drogen weapons tests by the Soviet Union. Well, what did
the President, whom we regard as a realistic states-
man, have to say? After all he did make efforts, though
weak and hesitant ones, to find ways and means of reliev-
ing international tension.

275

Mr. Eisenhower alleged that this Soviet foreign policy
move should not "be taken seriously," that moves of this
kind were pure "propaganda."

One might have expected it from other statesmen. But
how could a man who understands what this action means
call it propaganda? It is understandable, therefore, why
Mr. Eisenhower's statement disappointed and chagrined
all the peoples of the world.

Before this mass meeting of many thousands of Hungar-
ian working people I want to state the following: If
Mr. Eisenhower really thinks that we have discontinued
tests of atomic and hydrogen weapons for the sake of prop-
aganda, then why do not he and other Western statesmen
engage in the same propaganda and discontinue nuclear
weapons tests as well?

As for us, statesmen of the Soviet Union, we are proud
of this propaganda, which meets the wishes of all man-
kind. If the U.'S, President and the British Prime Minister
were to engage in such propaganda, the people of all
countries would be overjoyed!

Some statesmen try to weaken the strong impression
which the Supreme Soviet decision to discontinue, thermo-
nuclear tests unilaterally in the Soviet Union has had on
the minds of men by saying that the Soviet Union made a
series of test explosions just before announcing its deci-
sion. Yes, we did hold tests of thermo-nuclear weapons,
but the whole world knows that the United States tested
atomic weapons as far back as 1945, and not on some
proving ground but in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. And hun-
dreds of thousands of civilians died in these "tests."

The Soviet Union, as you know, started nuclear weapons
testing later. And conducted it under conditions which af-
forded maximum protection to the population en masse.
Anyone versed in technology will easily say offhand who
has made more test blasts of this weapon.

Thus, if we were to count the test explosions made, we
should have discontinued testing only after we had drawn

276

level in this respect with the United States. This is why
anyone referring to the number of tests made is in fact
trying to befog public opinion, to misinform the peoples,
and thus to carry on testing and stockpiling thermo-nu-
clear weapons, to carry on the armaments race.

Some Western statesmen allege also that we announced
our unilateral discontinuance of tests to evade internatio-
nal control of testing. But this dodge is easily exposed.
You know that not a single explosion of atomic or hydro-
gen bombs, whether by Britain or the United States, has
gone unnoticed. Thus, in fact, international control over
explosions already exists.

When the advocates of cold war in the United States
claimed that it was possible to make explosions which ap-
pliances would fail to register, which could not be con-
trolled, scientists of many countries, the U.S.A. among
them, refuted these claims. The U.S. politicians, who had
previously said that it was impossible to register all ex-
plosions, were compelled to admit that experimental .blasts
of nuclear weapons could not, indeed, be concealed.

But if some think that the absence of international
control over tests of nuclear weapons is an obstacle to the
United States and Britain following the Soviet example
and voluntarily ceasing tests, the Soviet Union is prepared
to agree to international control. We have declared this
repeatedly.

We urge our partners to stop testing. Let us, as from
today, make no more explosions of hydrogen and atomic
bombs, and stop contaminating the atmosphere with radio-
active fall-out.

On behalf of the peoples of the Soviet Union, on behalf
of the Soviet Government, I address myself to the Presi-
dent of the United States, Mr. Eisenhower, to the Prime
Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Macmillan: Follow the ex-
ample set by the 'Soviet Union and show your good will
by deeds. It would make mankind happy. It would be a
noble action that would live down the ages. We regard a

277

stop to nuclear testing as a first step towards complete
disarmament, towards creating conditions for lasting world
peace, as a step towards peaceful co-existence, peaceful
competition between the two systems. The settlement of
this vitally important question would facilitate the solu-
tion also of other urgent international problems.

Comrades, more than three months have passed since
the Soviet Government has made its proposal to convene a
conference of leading statesmen, attended by Heads of
Government, to settle a series of urgent problems and to
frame by joint, effort effective ways and means of reliev-
ing international tension and terminating the state of cold
war.

But they say to us that they want to discuss the situa-
tion in the countries of Eastern Europe. What exactly do
they want to discuss, and, generally, what right has any-
one to discuss the internal development of other countries?
No, good sirs, keep your nose out of other people's affairs.
The peoples of Eastern Europe have already made up their
minds. They are masters of their ship and will let no one
meddle in their domestic affairs.

The socialist countries and the world communist move-
ment are on a steep upgrade. The Moscow Meeting of Fra-
ternal Communist and Workers' Parties last autumn has
cemented still more their unity and solidarity, and defined
the tasks of the working-class and democratic movement.

Our main job is to strengthen peace. The socialist camp
is the bulwark of peace. Our camp has the support of all
the peace-loving peoples, of the whole of progressive man-
kind. We are conscious of the responsibility we bear for the
historical mission that has fallen to the socialist countries
and shall continue firmly, all together, along the path to
peace and socialism.

Long live the working people of Budapest, the capital
of People's Hungary!

Long live and flourish the Hungarian People's Repub-
lic—that reliable link of the powerful socialist camp!

278

Long live the Revolutionary Workers' and Peasants'
Government of the Hungarian People's Republic!

Long live the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party— the
inspirer and organizer of all the victories of the Hungar-
ian people!

Let the inviolable fraternal friendship of the Hungarian
and Soviet peoples live and strengthen for ever!

(N. S. Khrushchov's speech was repeatedly interrupted
by stormy and prolonged applause.)

■B

SPEECH

AT MEETING IN CEGLfiD DURING STAY IN HUNGARY

OF SOVIET PARTY AND GOVERNMENT DELEGATION

April 7, 1958

Dear Comrades, dear class brothers,

We have come to your country on a friendly return visit
at the invitation of the Central Committee of the Hungar-
ian Socialist Workers' Party and the Revolutionary Work-
ers' and Peasants' Government.

During our short stay here, when meeting the working
people of Hungary, we have everywhere felt and seen that
we, representatives of the Soviet Union, were very wel-
come. And we are happy to express our appreciation and
deep gratitude for this kind hospitality and warmth.

We are conscious of the most brotherly feelings that the
working people of Hungary have for the Soviet people. We
set an especially high value on them. There have been
many fine examples of fraternal solidarity between the
working people of Hungary and the Soviet Union. Take
the time of the October Revolution in our country.

When the working class in alliance with the working
peasantry overthrew the authoritarian regime and estab-
lished Soviet power, the whiteguards and interventionists
from many countries assailed the young Soviet Republic.
The working class, all the working people of our country,
rose to the fight against the enemies of the Revolution. It
was a grim struggle, and many Hungarian soldiers who
were then war prisoners in Russia took an active part in

280

it on the side of the Revolution. Hungarian and other na-
tionals fought shoulder to shoulder with the workers and
peasants of our country against the enemies of the work-
ing class and the working people of Russia, against the
foreign interventionists. Hungarian working people in sol-
diers' uniforms knew that by fighting the enemies of the
Soviet Republic in Russia they were also striking a blow
at the enemies of the Hungarian working people.

We remember the splendid effort of Hungary's working
class and working people when in 1919 they overthrew
landlord and capitalist rule in their own country and pro-
claimed Soviet power. We remember the message sent by
Bela Kun, the head of the Hungarian Soviet Republic, to
our great leader and teacher, V. I. Lenin.

But the Hungarian revolution of 1919 was defeated. It
was defeated because the bourgeoisie of the Western im-
perialist countries came to the assistance of the Hungar-
ian reactionaries. Together, by a joint effort, they crushed
the young Hungarian Soviet Republic.

Comrades, the Soviet working people successfully defen-
ded Soviet power under Communist Party leadership
against domestic counter-revolutionaries and foreign in-
terventionists. However, the imperialists could not recon-
cile themselves to the existence of the Soviet socialist
state. They plotted against us, tried to throttle the young
Soviet Republic by economic blockade, and planned an
armed attack on our Soviet country. As you know, the war
which Hitler started against the Soviet Union ended in a
complete rout for fascist Germany. The Soviet Army liber-
ated Hungary from Hitler fascism and wiped out the
Horthy regime. In self-devoted struggle the Hungarian
working class, the working peasantry and working intel-
lectuals gained the opportunity of building their own so-
cialist state in keeping with the interests of the working
people.

The people of Hungary are building their life by them-
selves along socialist lines, without landlords and capital-

's/

-I

ists, and have scored big successes. But there is no get-
ting away from the fact that the former leadership in Hun-
gary has in the past committed serious mistakes and dis-
tortions. The reactionaries took advantage of them. With
the support of external imperialist forces, the enemies of
people's democracy in Hungary organized a counter-revo-
lutionary uprising in the autumn of 1956. Reaction tried
to destroy the gains of Hungary's working people. The
fascist rebels unleashed a reign of terror against the fore-
most men of the working class.

We, leaders of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
and the Soviet Government, had at the time to make a dif-
ficult decision. How should we act? Strength was on our
side, and so was truth. Our truth is the truth of the
working class— the truth of the working people. The dif-
ficulty lay in the fact that a certain, least conscious, part
of the Hungarian workers had fallen prey to enemy prop-
aganda and participated in the disturbances caused by
the counter-revolution. We had to decide what we were to
do. Common sense urged us to help the workers and work-
ing people of the Hungarian People's Republic. But it is
one thing to help economically— to send metal and grain,
and to give advice. It is quite another thing to send troops.
We never hesitate when it comes to repelling an ene-
my attack. But we saw that owing to their lack of political
consciousness a certain section of Hungarians had become
a tool in the hands of their class enemies.

Comrades, believe us, it was difficult to make our deci-
sion, but we thought that we could not look on idly any
longer while emboldened fascist elements began their sav-
age massacre of workers, peasants, Communists and other
foremost Hungarians in the streets and squares of Buda-
pest and other Hungarian cities, while the counter-revolu-
tion sought to drown the socialist gains of Hungary's toilers
in the blood of the people. We could not bear with a situa-
tion in which a fascist regime would again take ascen-

282

dancy in your country, and Hungary would become a new
hotbed of war.

When we made our decision to come to your assistance
in response to the appeal of the Hungarian working peo-
ple and the Workers' and Peasants' Government, we knew
that the enemies of the working class, that imperialist
reactionaries throughout the world would use our action
to their own ends. But we believed, we were convinced,
that the working class and all the working people of Hun-
gary, and progressives all over the world, would even-
tually appreciate our stand. I repeat, we could not stand
idly by when the imperialist reactionaries had drawn their
sword against the working people of Hungary. That is why
the Soviet Government responded to the request of the
Hungarian Revolutionary Workers' and Peasants' Govern-
ment and decided to assist militarily in suppressing the
counter-revolutionary revolt in Hungary. We helped the
Hungarian people in their dark hour.

Comrades Hungarians, I think you realize perfectly well
that when we sent our soldiers and officers to fight the fas-
cist rebels, we had no other aim than to assist our friends,
who were temporarily in trouble. (Applause.)

When bourgeois governments send troops to other coun-
tries they do so with the intent to conquer, and seek to es-
tablish their exploiter rule over the working people of those
countries. We helped you, so that you could defend your
interests against a handful of fascist conspirators and safe-
guard the people's right of building its own life without
exploiters. By helping the Hungarian people to smash the
counter-revolution we performed our internationalist duty.
What is more, after smashing the fascist uprising we
gave Hungary considerable economic assistance, so that
you could rectify more speedily the damage done to your
country by the counter-revolutionary conspirators. The
Soviet Union sent Hungary coal, metal and grain. (Ap-
plause.)

Disinterested assistance was rendered to the Hungarian

283

working people not only by the Soviet Union, but also by
all the other socialist countries, which all wished sincerely
to be of help, so that the material losses inflicted upon
Hungary's national economy during the 1956 October-No-
vember events should not cause any marked drop in
the living standard of the Hungarian people. Would a
government pursuing aims of conquest act that way?
(Applause.)

And so, when we went to your country at the suggestion
of the Central Committee of the Hungarian Socialist
Workers' Party and the Government of your republic, at the
suggestion of Comrade Kadar, we did so with the firm be-
lief that we should meet with complete understanding
here, knowing that we could look squarely and honestly
in the face of Hungary's workers, peasants and working
intellectuals. We came to you as to our most loyal friends
and brothers. (Applause.) And we are happy that we have
not been mistaken in our expectations. During our stay
in People's Hungary we have encountered everywhere
among the working people the most friendly sentiments
for the Soviet Union.

Comrades, you remember the hue and cry of internation-
al reaction at the time of the Hungarian events of 1956.
There was no limit to what our antagonists wrote then. To
confuse people, they drew a parallel between 1956 and the
Hungarian revolution of 1848. Enemy propaganda raised
a howl that the government of tsarist Russia had in 1848
sent troops to Hungary to suppress the revolutionary
movement there, and that now, as it were, history was re-
peating itself and Soviet troops had suppressed the "pop-
ular" revolution.

But only enemies of your people, and ours, could draw
such a parallel. It is patently clear to all that the Hungar-
ian revolution of 1848 and the counter-revolutionary up-
rising of fascist elements in October-November 1956, sup-
ported as it was by imperialist reaction, were entirely dif-
ferent things. The difference is that in 1848 the Russian

284

tsarist government, that is, Russia's government of ex-
ploiters, had come to the assistance of Hungary's govern-
ment of exploiters. All Hungarians know that in 1848 the
Russian tsar sent his troops to help the Austro-Hungarian
monarchy because the Hungarian revolution constituted a
threat to Russian autocracy. The Russian tsar was an ene-
my not only of the Hungarian, but also of the Russian,
people. (Applause.) He persecuted Russian progressives
ruthlessly, shot down the Decembrist uprising, and exe-
cuted its leaders.

But there was also another Russia, comrades. The Rus-
sia of Herzen and Chernyshevsky was whole-heartedly
with the people of Hungary, who had risen against their
oppressors. We are direct heirs of just that Russia.

Comrades, I want to say something here that will doubt-
less go against the grain with bourgeois nationalists. I sup-
pose some of them are present at this meeting. The Hun-
garian bourgeois nationalists say that we bear a respon-
sibility for the actions of the tsarist government in the
last century. Yet they hush up the fact that Hungarian
troops had fought in the territory of the Soviet Union on
the side of the Hitler forces, and had gone as far as Sta-
lingrad. This was not so very long ago— just 15 to 17
years. What can the Hungarian bourgeois nationalists say
to that? The Soviet people know that the working people
of Hungary bear no responsibility for the actions of the
fascist Horthy clique. We know that Horthy was an enemy
of the Hungarian people as much as he was an enemy of
the Soviet people. (Applause.) I think that this is clear to
the workers, working peasants and working intellectuals
(prolonged applause), and it must be explained to those
who have not grasped it yet. (Applause.)

Comrades, I have already related at the mass meeting
in Sztalinvaros that when we announced in the news-
papers that our delegation was going to Hungary, but
did not say who exactly was going, imperialist reaction
wrote in the foreign press that, of all things, Khrushchov

285

would not go to Hungary, for he would be in for a recep-
tion there which he would not dare to face. (Laughter.)
I even had telegrams from non-socialist countries. In
one of them a well-wisher wrote: Mr. Khrushchov, don't
go to Hungary, and take more guards along if you do. I
give you this advice, he wrote on, because I see that you
are a good man and work hard for the cause of peace.
(Laughter, applause.) We have guards, of course, but
whatever guards we have, and whatever their number, no
guards would help if the people would not support us.
The people are a tremendous power. They dethrone kings,
perform the greatest revolutions, and it is difficult to
impose any idea on them that goes against their class
interests.

We came to you without fear, comrade Hungarians, as
brother to brother, and we are happy because we proved
right. (Stormy applause.)

We are pleased to have visited your city, which holds
a prominent place in Hungarian history. This is where
Kossuth, that splendid son of the Hungarian people,
made his first speech, urging Hungarians to fight for
their country's freedom and independence. The working
people of Hungary and the Soviet Union love him and
respect him for his fiery speeches, his love of freedom
and devotion to the interests of his homeland. But Kos-
suth's time was a time of bourgeois revolutions. Today,
we all live in a different time— the time of proletarian,
socialist revolutions, when the working class is fighting
capital.

Comrades, the Soviet Union, Hungary, the Chinese
People's Republic, and all the socialist countries, are
making fine progress. The economy of the socialist coun-
tries is advancing steadily, socialist science and culture
are developing at a rapid pace. We rejoice at these suc-
cesses.

Despite the heavy losses inflicted by the rebels, the
Hungarian People's Republic is making consistent and

286

steady progress in developing its socialist economy. But
you and we, the Soviet Union, and the other socialist
countries, have our difficulties, and these must be con-
quered. Nobody is going to help us. We have to depend
upon ourselves, upon our own labour, our own knowledge.
We must continuously raise our productivity of labour,
cement labour discipline, produce more with smaller out-
lays of labour. It is only by increasing our productivity of
labour that we can move ahead more rapidly, and achieve
fresh victories.

Comrades, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
and the Soviet Government are bending every effort to
raise the economy, to improve the living standard in our
country, to ensure world peace. We are against war. We
do not need war. Yet this does not mean that we renounce
the class struggle. The class struggle cannot be
stopped as long as there are exploiters and exploited. We
have always said, and say now, that the establishment
of one state system or another in the various countries
is a|i internal matter for the people of these countries
to decide. We do not interfere, nor intend to interfere, in
the domestic affairs of other countries. But we have' al-
ways said, and say now, that the conditions created in
the socialist countries will enable us to win the peaceful
competition with capitalism in the economic field.

You may recall how our enemies ridiculed us when the
great Lenin called on the Russian working class to take
power and fight for the triumph of socialism together
with the working peasantry. Our class enemies and their
agents in the international working-class movement— the
diverse revisionists, opportunists, and the like-insisted
that this was Utopia. How could the scarcely literate, or
totally illiterate, Russian workers and peasants defeat
capitalism, they asked. How dare Lenin and the Bolshe-
viks call on the workers to take power into their hands
in so backward a country?
Forty years have passed since then. Where was Rus-

287

sia at that time? It was then somewhere at the bottom.
And where is the Soviet Union now, what heights has it
scaled? It ranks second in the world for economic devel-
opment, leaving Britain, France, Germany, and other
countries far behind. (Applause.) What country produces
most specialists with a secondary and university-level
education? The Soviet Union does. (Applause). Whose
artificial earth satellites were the first to soar into outer
space? They were sputniks developed in the socialist
Soviet Union. (Stormy applause.) Who is it that now
intends to catch up the Soviet Union in scientific devel-
opment? It is the United States that now sets itself the
task of catching up the Soviet Union. (Applause.)

I think that I shall not be misunderstood. (We are not
bragging, and have no wish to offend the American
people. The Americans are fine people. But the time has
come when capitalism must surrender the right of way
to a new, more progressive system — the socialist system.
This does not mean that the socialist countries must in-
terfere in the affairs of the capitalist countries, comrades.
They have their own working class, and their own work-
ing masses, and these will do their job. Just have patience.
I repeat, the system that exists in one country or
another is the internal affair of the people of that country..]

Allow me, dear comrades, again to express our warm
love, our heartfelt gratitude and deep respect. Our Party
and Government delegation has brought you fraternal
greetings from the Soviet people and assurances that
you will not find better friends anywhere than the peo-
ples of the socialist countries. (Prolonged applause.)

There is no exploitation and no exploiters under the
system established in the socialist countries. The cap-
italist system has been abolished there for all time, and
so has the oppression of one people by another. Their
peoples render each other fraternal assistance and re-
spect the labour of their brothers. We must consolidate
our ranks still more — the ranks of workers, peasants and

288

the intelligentsia of all the socialist countries. We must
work persistently for world peace. {Prolonged applause.)

Long live the working class of the Hungarian People's
Republic! (Prolonged applause.)

Long live the working peasantry of Hungary! (Pro-
longed applause.)

Long live the Hungarian intellectuals, who keep step
with the working class under the leadership of the Hun-
garian Socialist Workers' Party! (Prolonged applause.)

Long live the Revolutionary Workers' and Peasants'
Government of Hungary, headed by Comrade Ferenc
Miinnich! (Prolonged applause.)

Long live the fine son of the Hungarian people-
Chairman of the Presidium of the Hungarian People's
Republic— our dear friend Istvan Dobi! (Prolonged ap-
plause.)

Long live the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party
headed by Comrade Janos Kadar! (Stormy, prolonged
applause.)

SPEECH
AT MASS MEETING IN TATABANYA DURING STAY

IN HUNGARY
OF SOVIET PARTY AND GOVERNMENT DELEGATION

April 8, 1958

Dear Comrades, Dear Friends and Brothers,

Our Party and Government delegation came to you at
the invitation of the Central Committee of the Hungarian
Socialist Workers' Party and the Hungarian Revolution-
ary Workers' and Peasants' Government. We are very
grateful to Comrades Janos Kadar and Ferenc Munnich,
who have invited us to see how your Party works and
how your people live.

Comrades, we are being well received everywhere.
Words fail us to describe the warmth and cordiality of
the welcome extended to the Soviet Party and Govern-
ment delegation by the working people of the Hungarian
People's Republic. I am particularly pleased to visit you,
the miners. After all, it was among miners that I spent
my childhood and youth. We wanted to visit you, to see
the Hungarian miners, to make their acquaintance, to see
whether or not they are like Soviet miners. (Laughter, ap-
plause.) And we see that the Hungarian miners are just
like ours, like Soviet miners. (Applause.)

The friendship of the peoples of the Soviet Union and
Hungary has a line history. When the October Revolution
broke out in Russia and the whiteguards and interven-
tionists wanted to crush Soviet power, when the French,
Japanese, British, American and other interventionists

290

landed their troops in Soviet Russia, when many bour-
geois countries sent their soldiers against the* young
Soviet Republic, and the Soviet people took up arms in
response to the great Lenin's call to defend the gains of
the October Revolution, the gallant sons of the Hungar-
ian working class, the Hungarian working people— the
internationalists of Hungary— joined the young Red
Guard, and later the Red Army, together with other na-
tionals to fight against the whiteguards and intervention-
ists. (Applause.)

I know, for example, that Comrade Ferenc Munnich
was an active participant in that fight. Here in Tataba-
nya I was approached by a comrade, one of your miners,
who shook hands with me and told me that he had also
fought with the Red Army against General Dutov. And,
evidently, there is many a dozen old veteran revolution-'
aries among the Hungarian miners, who have fought in
the Civil War along with the workers of the Soviet
Union.

Comrades, those days, the early days of the October
Revolution, have long since passed. Soviet power is
already forty years old in our country. The times when
the imperialists thought they could with impunity send
their troops into the Soviet Union, are long over. They
ought to know by now that we are impregnable that the
peoples of the entire great socialist camp are with us
and that this camp has sufficient moral and material
strength to smash anyone who makes an attempt upon
our freedom and independence, the independence of the
peoples of the socialist countries. (Stormy, prolonged
applause, shouts of approval.)

The path travelled by the Soviet people has been a dif-

cnv ■♦ ^lu .Ut lt iS VJSUal evidence of the boundless pos-
sibilities that open before the working class, before all
working people, if they are led by the Communist Party
devoted as it is to the popular cause, to the cause of
Marxism-Leninism. Such a party, created by Lenin,

291

stands at the head of the working class, the working
people of the Soviet Union. The great Lenin led the Par-
ty, which he had created and tempered, in great under-
takings. The Party was followed by the whole working
class and the working peasantry of Russia, who went into
battle against their class enemies, the landowners and
capitalists, and in October 1917 we achieved a great
victory.

In forty years of Soviet power our country has made
a giant leap in its development. It has moved forward
into second place in the world for industrial production.
It ranks first today for the training of engineers and
technicians. Is not the working class of all countries
entitled to be proud of these achievements, scored by the
working class, the working people of our country? (Stormy,
prolonged applause.)

After the October Revolution our country started out
along an untrodden path. And it was no promenade by
any means. From capitalism we inherited a country with
a backward industry and agriculture, a country laid
waste in the First World War and the Civil War. The
workers and peasants of the Soviet Union had to strain
every sinew to rehabilitate industry and agriculture, to
build up a powerful heavy industry, a modern agricul-
ture, so as to defend the gains of the October Revolution
against the imperialists of all countries.

And the working class of the Soviet Union, the work-
ing peasantry, have stood the test of political ripeness,
and have made the impossible possible. Where did the
working people of our country come by so much
strength? What is the source of their all-conquering ener-
gy?} Under capitalism the working class labours under
the whip-lash of poverty, the threat of unemployment,
and the peasantry is haunted by hunger and ruin, where-
as under the Soviet system the people are conscious
that they are the masters of their country, that econom-
ic difficulties are to be conquered solely by devoted

292

labour.] The working class, the working peasantry, the
intelligentsia of the Soviet Union worked tirelessly for
a better and happier life.

Under the leadership of their Communist Party, the
Soviet people have developed a powerful, steadily grow-
ing industry. They have now a developed, mechanized
agriculture. Socialism opened up boundless opportunities
to the working people. Our great country has made gigan-
tic progress in a historically short time through the heroic
labour effort of the Soviet working class, the working peas-
antry and the people's intelligentsia. When the Hitler host
fell treacherously upon the Soviet Union it was repulsed
crushingly. The Soviet people and their heroic army not
only liberated the enemy-occupied territory of our own
country, but smashed the Hitler army and set free the
peoples of many countries from fascist slavery.

In heroic struggle against their oppressors, the peoples
of a number of countries have won their freedom and are
now building their life, developing their economv along so-
cialist lines.

Comrades, no longer is the Soviet Union the world's only
socialist country, as it was before the Second World War.
Today 13 countries with a population of nearly 1,000 mil-
lion have taken the path of socialist development, the path
illumined by the immortal teaching of Marxism-Leninism.
Is it for us, comrades, at a time like this, to hang our
heads, to underestimate our strength? {Prolonged, stormy
applause, shouts of approval.)

But it should be borne in mind that the imperialists have
not yet abandoned the struggle against communism, against
socialism. We cannot, therefore, sit by idly, and should,
as the saying goes, keep our ears cocked and watch the
enemy, so that he should not twist us round his little
finger.

We have always declared, and declare now, that we
do not want war. But we do not renounce the class strug-
gle. The class struggle will continue as long as there is

293

capitalism. (Stormy, prolonged applause, shouts of ap-
proval.)

Yet this does not go to say that we intend to implant our
order and the socialist system in the capitalist countries by
force of arms. That is the business of the working class,
the working people of each country. It is the internal affair
of the people of each country. Naturally, our sympathies
have always been, and always will be, with the working
class.

We are firmly convinced that socialism will win the
peaceful competition of the two systems. And win it will by
dint of its great advantages, by dint of its inspiring exam-
ple. The only right road to victory is through the utmost
development of the productive forces. The socialist coun-
tries must have the highest productivity of labour to pro-
duce a maximum of output at a minimum outlay of labour.
That is the mighty source which enables us to steadily raise
the living and cultural standards of the peoples of the so-
cialist countries.

There is, comrades, yet another essential condition for
our victory. It is the closest possible solidarity and frater-
nal unity of the socialist countries. We must not give the
enemy a chance to cause a quarrel between our peoples. The
enemy is trying to stir up trouble, the easier to fish in
troubled waters. (Laughter.)

Comrades, in November 1957 the Soviet Union celebrated
the 40th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revo-
lution. The representatives of Communist and Workers
parties of many countries gathered at that time in Moscow.
Suffice it to say that the Peace Manifesto adopted at the
meeting of representatives of fraternal parties was signed
by representatives of 64 fraternal parties. The historic
documents adopted at the Moscow meetings, and the una-
nimous approval of these documents by all the fraternal
parties, show how great is the unity of the Communist and
Workers' parties and how serried their ranks in the struggle
for the great cause of socialism, the cause of peace!

294

Dear friends, there is a good line in a revolutionary song
of ours. I don't know how it sounds in Hungarian. When
the Hungarians sang it, the tune was the same. Evidently,
the words are the same, too. It says, "Is it for us to fear
the illusory power of the tsars?" Indeed, comrades, is it for
us to fear our class enemies? The great camp of socialist
countries, the powerful world communist movement make
certain the triumph of the immortal ideas of Marxism-
Leninism. Is it for us to bow, for us to pander to the
enemy? Anyone who not only does this, but even thinks of
this, will never be a son of his people, will never be a hero.
He will crawl like a snake, not soar like a falcon in the
sky. (Stormy applause, shouts of approval.)

Dear comrades and brothers, I have spoken in Sztalin-
varos and made a few critical remarks. Allow me to repeat
them to you, since you are my friends and brother-miners,
and since a brother should not take offence at a brother
who speaks straightforwardly of failings and mistakes.
Bourgeois correspondents wrote that Khrushchov has come
to Hungary, that he walks about head up, that he does
not excuse himself before the Hungarians for the Soviet
troops having participated in suppressing the revolution.
They describe the revolt of October-November 1956 as a
revolution, but to us, to the working class, it was
an outright counter-revolution. (Shouts of approval, ap-
plause.)

Why can I look fearlessly and squarely in your eyes?
Because I am a worker, because I am a Communist and
an internationalist. We know very well what revolution is,
and what counter-revolution is.

The workers, the working peasantry, all the working
people of our country regard their successes not only as
successes of the Soviet Union, but also as successes of the
entire international working class. (Applause.) This is why,
comrades, we must support each other like brothers, and
criticize each other like brothers, if sometimes we should

295

fall out of step. And in the autumn of 1956 some Hungarian
workers, and miners among them, did fall out of step.
Some went so far as to call the counter-revolution a revo-
lution. For a revolutionary that is the same as a hen
crowing like a cock. {Laughter, applause.)

Well then, were we to crow, too? No, we saw that it was
not a revolutionary voice, that it was not a revolutionary
move.

As for the part played by Soviet troops in suppressing
the counter-revolutionary revolt, the matter is absolutely
clear. When the Government and Party of the Hungarian
working class approached us, we felt that as Communists
we were duty-bound to come to the assistance of the work-
ers, the working peasantry, the entire fraternal Hungarian
people in their hour of need. {Stormy applause, shouts of
approval.)

I said in Sztalinvaros, and I repeat now that, after all,
having taken power into its hands — and the working class
does so at the price of great effort — this power has to be
preserved as the apple of one's eye. Once you've taken
power into your hands, don't look the enemy in the mouth,
but govern firmly. If you do not govern firmly, if you do not
strike down the enemy, the enemy will strike you. Whereas
you have somewhat broken this commandment.

I said in Sztalinvaros: Comrades Hungarians, can't you,
so to say, avoid falling out of step again? You must know
how to decipher the designs of the enemy and strike back
if he raises his head, so we shall not later have to come
to your assistance.

Bourgeois journalists heard what I had to say, but what
they wrote was something entirely different. They reported
that in his Sztalinvaros speech Khrushchov said that if the
forces of counter-revolution would again stage an uprising,
the Soviet Union would not come to the assistance of the
Hungarian working class.

I have to say to these journalists, pardon me, gentlemen,
you have reported an untruth. Firstly, we are sure that the

296

Hungarian working class will never again give the coun-
ter-revolution a chance to raise its head. It will firmly hold
the Marxist-Leninist banner, rallying round its party of
Communists, and the Party Central Committee headed by
Comrade Kadar. (Stormy applause. The audience scans:
"Long live the Party!")

Secondly, we must warn the devotees of all provoca-
tions. We don't advise the enemies of the working class to
try our patience and organize new provocations. We
declare that if there is a new provocation against any so-
cialist country, the provocateurs will have to deal with all
the countries of the socialist camp, and the Soviet Union
is always ready to come to the assistance of its friends,
to repulse fittingly the enemies of socialism if they should
try to disturb the peaceful labours of the people of the
socialist countries. (Stormy, prolonged applause. Shouts
of approval.)
r_We are realists and must soberly weigh the situation.
< There exist socialist and capitalist countries in the world
today. The working class, the working people in the capi-
talist countries, tolerate the bourgeois order in these
countries for the time beingJThe working class, the work-
ing people of the socialist countries have chosen a different
path— the path indicated by Marx, Engels, Lenin The
imperialists have no business sticking their noses into the
domestic affairs of the socialist countries, or, as Russians
put it sticking their pigs' snouts into our socialist garden
(Laughter, applause.)

We stand for non-interference by states in the domestic
attairs of other states. That precisely is peaceful co-exist-
ence. (Applause.) Every people has the right to the state
system that it likes best.

We say that our socialist system is the best, the most
progressive.! The capitalists say that capitalism is better.
But capitalism is already a hard-ridden old hag (laughter
applause), while socialism is new, young and brimming

297

with energy. It is the liberation of all popular forces. It is
a system under which all working people join in active
and creative endeavour, under which all work for them-
selves, for their popular state in which there are no
exploiters and no exploited. Socialism is genuine freedom
for all working people, and not the "freedom" of capital-
ist slavery which the monopolists and their henchmen call
the "free world."

Socialism offers ample scope for the development of all
the creative forces of the people, for the flowering of pop-
ular talents, for the development of science, technology
and culture. And it was no accident that socialist rather
than capitalist artificial earth satellites soared first into
outer space. (Applause.)

Dear comrades, allow me to conclude with this and to
wish you new successes in your noble labour. You are
burdened with a very big responsibility to your home-
land, to socialism. You mine coal. Lenin called coal the
bread of industry. Without coal, without power, industry
is at a standstill. Without industry there is no forward
movement. You must remember this.

I repeat, we can win the battle against capitalism for
the building of socialism only if we organize our labour
better, if the liberated working class has a higher labour
productivity.

Long live the miners who produce the coal that is neces-
sary for the development of industry, for the building of
socialism! (Prolonged applause.)

Long live the working class and the working peasantry
of Hungary! (Prolonged applause.)

Long live the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party and
its Central Committee headed by Comrade Janos Kadar!
(Stormy, prolonged applause. The audience scans: "Long
live the Party!")

Long live the 'Revolutionary Workers' and Peasants' Gov-
ernment headed by Comrade Ferenc Miinnich! (Stormy,
prolonged applause.)

298

Long live the eternal friendship of the Soviet and Hun-
garian peoples! (Stormy, prolonged applause.)

Long live the friendship of the peoples of the socialist
countries! (Stormy, prolonged applause.)

Long live world peace! (Stormy, prolonged applause.)

The audience sings the 'Internationale."

(N. S. Khrushchov's speech was repeatedly interrupted
by ovations, shouts of "Hear, hear!", calls of "Hurrah!")

SPEECH

AT SOVIET EMBASSY RECEPTION

IN BUDAPEST DURING STAY IN HUNGARY

OF SOVIET PARTY AND GOVERNMENT DELEGATION

April 8, 1958

Dear Comrades, Friends,

Esteemed Ladies and Gentlemen,

Our stay in hospitable Hungary is nearing its end. In
this brief time we have had the privilege of visiting a
number of cities, some villages, factories and plants, and
agricultural co-operatives, and have talked to people from
all walks of life.

The mass meeting in Budapest on April 4, and all our
other meetings, have left a deep, indelible impression. We,
representatives of the Soviet people, were given a warm
and cordial welcome wherever we went.

These heart-warming meetings were a token of the cor-
dial and friendly sentiments which the Hungarian people
have for the Soviet people.

The friendship of our peoples is growing stronger de-
spite the exertions of our enemies, who are trying to sow
seeds of discord and ill-feeling between Hungary and the
Soviet Union.

The Soviet delegation has received a large number of
invitations from various towns and villages of the Hungar-
ian People's Republic, from many collectives of working
people, requesting us to visit them. We would gladly visit
all our friends, but it would take many weeks if we should
accept all the invitations. We thank you heartily for this

300

demonstration of fraternal love and friendship for the So-
viet people, whom we represent. Unfortunately, we do not
have so much time, because we must return home.

During our stay here we have held talks with the lead-
ers of the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party and the Hun-
garian Government. Our conversations concerned further
consolidation of friendly relations between our two coun-
tries, and some international matters. Our talks passed in
an atmosphere of complete unanimity, complete mutual
understanding and identity of views in all questions
discussed.

We are profoundly gratified with the results of our trip
and hope that it will further fortify Soviet-Hungarian friend-
ship, fraternal co-operation between the peoples of our
countries and the entire socialist camp. We are also con-
vinced that this trip will serve the interests of world peace.

Allow me to propose a toast to the industrious Hungar-
ian people who, hand in hand with the peoples of the
other socialist countries, are confidently building a new
society.

To the health of the members of the Political Bureau of
the Central Committee of the Hungarian Socialist Work-
ers' Party and the First Secretary of the Central Commit-
tee, Comrade Janos Kadar!

To the health of the members of the Hungarian Revolu-
tionary Workers' and Peasants' Government and its Chair-
man, Comrade Ferenc Mtinnich!

To the health of the members of the Presidium of the
Hungarian People's Republic and its Chairman, Comrade
Istvan Dobi!

To your health, dear comrades and friends!

SPEECH

AT ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF HUNGARIAN

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC DURING STAY IN HUNGARY

OF SOVIET PARTY AND GOVERNMENT DELEGATION

April 9, 1958

Dear Comrade President Rusznyak!

Dear Comrades,

Allow me to thank you, representatives of the Hungar-
ian intelligentsia, for your kind welcome and the fine
words spoken- here about us, the Soviet Government, the
Soviet people. We, emissaries of the Soviet Union, are
deeply touched by your warm reception.

Soviet people have a deep respect for the rich and orig-
inal culture of Hungary, and prize very highly the achieve-
ments of Hungarian science. They know and like the
works of the leading representatives of Hungarian litera-
ture and art. The whole world knows the names of your
gifted scientists, writers and men of art.

During our short stay in Hungary we have seen what
big successes have been scored in the building of a social-
ist society in the Hungarian People's Republic. These suc-
cesses, the fruits of the tremendous labour effort of the
Hungarian people, embody the energy and talent of the
best representatives of the Hungarian intelligentsia— its
scientists, engineers, teachers, doctors, agronomists, and
men of art and literature.

But, comrades, you also have your difficulties. It is par-
ticularly clear to us, Soviet people, what difficulties some
of the Hungarian intellectuals are experiencing. We are

302

well aware of them, because we know the experience of the
intelligentsia in our own country.

People's Hungary is building socialism — a new society.
Every society produces its own intelligentsia, so as to car-
ry out the tasks it confronts successfully. The socialist
system .also inevitably produces its own intelligentsia. It
produces an intelligentsia bound by all its roots to the
people, inseparable from them, serving the vital interests
of the people.

At the time of the Great October Revolution, when the
Soviet people were carrying out revolutionary changes,
people belonging to the old intelligentsia in our country
went through the same difficulties of the transition period.
The overwhelming majority of the old intelligentsia con-
quered their doubts and vacillations, took the side of the
Soviets, and joined .in the great effort of socialist construc-
tion with all their talent, creative vigour and tireless la-
bour.

Allow me to illustrate how some of our well-known and
respected scientists grappled with these difficulties, and to
outline their evolution towards socialism. I think that in
this there is much in common between the intelligentsia and
scientists of the Soviet Union and the intelligentsia and
scientists of Hungary and the other socialist countries.

The workers adjust themselves to revolutionary changes
with the least difficulty, because the working class is the
bearer of revolutionary ideas, the main force and leader of
this social upheaval.

In bourgeois society, the intelligentsia is an intermediate
stratum between the main classes. When keen and bitter
revolutionary clashes occur, all the links of the old social
system naturally begin to crack. Some links break, others
show a leaning towards the bourgeoisie, and others still to-
wards the working class. We appreciate your position. It
is a difficult one. Not all succeed at once in finding their
place, in deciding the question of whom they should follow.
And though you are scientists, some of you sometimes re-

303

sort to unscientific methods — to guesswork on where to
go, what camp to join. I do not speak of all, but aren't
there people like that? (Laughter, applause.) While some
make no guesses and take their stand firmly either with
the revolutionary class, or go over to the antagonists of
revolution, the antagonists of the working class.

We Communists must show especial tact and tolerance
towards the old intelligentsia. If sometimes some isolat-
ed, or even large, groups of intellectuals do not always
understand revolutionary changes, we should never hasten
to place them among the enemies of the revolution. Pa-
tience, time and persistent effort are needed in our work
with the intelligentsia.

All of you know our great scientist, Ivan Petrovich Pav-
lov. But do you happen to know that in 1935, when a
world congress of physiologists convened in the Soviet
Union, Pavlov only reluctantly agreed to address members
of the Soviet Government as "Comrades People's Commis-
sars"? (Laughter.)

When Pavlov went to Ryazan, his hometown, he was ac-
corded a good reception there and given a glimpse of real
life. He made a closer acquaintance with ordinary work-
ing men and saw what great progress they had achieved
under the leadership of the Communists. After all, to put
it figuratively, dedicated as he was entirely to science,
Pavlov had mostly to deal with experimental monkeys
and dogs. (Laughter.) He was isolated from social life,
knew nothing of revolution. The October Socialist Revo-
lution burst upon him like a bolt from the blue.

And the people of his hometown were witness to an in-
teresting evolution in Pavlov, whose world outlook was
changing literally overnight. When he came to Ryazan
some of the people of his own age, who had attended the
seminary with him and had a touch of anti-Sovietism, de-
cided to bear upon Pavlov, to kindle anti-Soviet feelings
in him, to use that distinguished scientist of world renown,
to egg him on against the Soviet system.

304

But when his townsmen showed him his native Ryazan,
when he saw how much had changed there in the short
spell after the Revolution, he took a different view of
things. Pavlov went to the collective farms on the Oka,
visited the peasants, chatted with them a lot in the peasant
manner of speech. He asked them what harvests they were
getting, using the peasant expression for it; do you get
sam-syom, he asked, meaning whether they got seven
times more than they sowed. Speaking to a group of peas-
ants, Pavlov asked how many of them were literate. The
chairman told those who had a secondary school educa-
tion to raise their hands. More than ten young men and
girls did so. Pavlov was stunned on learning that among
the peasants even at that time there were quite a few
people with a secondary school education.

Ivan Petrovich Pavlov was an ardent patriot. During
his trip to the United States some individuals there tried
to set him against the Soviet system, but he rejected their
attempts curtly and declared that he had always served
his people, his homeland, and would continue to do so.

Whoever is familiar with Pavlov's letter to the young
people of the Soviet Union, comrades, knows that although
he did not have a Party card in his pocket, he died a con-
vinced Communist.

"In the team of which I am leader, everything depends
on the atmosphere," Pavlov wrote. "All of us are har-
nessed to a common cause and each pulls his weight.
With us it is often impossible to discern what is 'mine'
and what is 'yours,' but our common cause only gains
thereby.

"... Our country is opening wide vistas before scien-
tists, and— it must be owned— science in our country is be-
ing fostered with an extremely generous hand."
In the concluding part of his letter, Pavlov wrote:
"For the young people, just as for us, it is a matter of
honour to justify the great expectations that our country
puts in science."

305

Such was the great Soviet scientist Pavlov. He received
the socialist revolution in our country with suspicion, but
gradually became a convinced protagonist of Soviet power.

I might name Academician Yevgeny Oskarovich Paton,
whom t have known well personally. He was a prominent
scientist and engineer, antl Vice-President of the Ukrainian
Academy of Sciences. His father was the tsarist consul in
Nice. Paton was a man of abrupt character. I should like
to cite the following example on that score. One day a con-
ference was held at the Culture Department of the Central
Committee of the Ukrainian Communist Party. Many
scientists were invited. Academician Paton was one of
them. The conference was a long one. The speeches were
of no concern to Paton and held little interest for him. He
listened in for a bit, then retired quietly in the English fa-
shion. (Laughter.) Some people later tried to interpret his
departure as an act of disrespect for the Central Com-
mittee, saying that he had been summoned to the C.C. for
a conference and had left it demonstratively.

Knowing Paton and his character, I told these comrades
that probably he had been invited to a conference dealing
with matters of no concern to him at all. And Paton, a
purposeful man, a scientist, decided that he had no busi-
ness being there, that there was no call on his knowledge
at such a conference, and hence departed to get on with
his own work. (Laughter, applause.)

Paton has done very much for the development of So-
viet science and technology. The Institute of Electric Weld-
ing which he founded shortly before the war with Hitler
Germany contributed greatly to the development of the
method of automatic continuous welding of tank bodies. In
December 1943 I received a letter from Paton, who was
then working in the Urals.

The letter was of great interest — a veritable confession
of a scientist. He wrote:

"When the Soviets took power in our country I was
forty-seven. After working nearly 28 years in the capitalist

306

environment, I had acquired its world outlook. For this rea-
son the Soviet authorities treated me with suspicion. I felt
this on more than one occasion. For my part, I thought the
undertakings of the new authorities unrealistic. However,
I continued to work honestly, because it was in my work
that I saw the purpose of my life.

"When I saw the First Five-Year Plan, I did not believe
that it was feasible. Time went by. When construction was
begun on the Dnieper Power Station, with which the old
authorities had had no success, I began to realize that I
was wrong.

"As the new projects of the five-year plans, the recon-
struction of Moscow, and other prominent Party and Gov-
ernment undertakings were translated into reality, my
world outlook gradually changed. I came to appreciate
that what brought me closer to Soviet power was that la-
bour, the basis of my life, is placed above everything else
by the Soviets. I gained this conviction from the facts.

"I was conscious of the fact that I had been reborn un-
der the impact of the new life. The Patriotic War is vivid
proof of the might and stability of the Soviet system. Com-
paring it with the course of the past two wars— the Japa-
nese and the imperialist— one is amazed at the stamina
and heroism shown by the Russian people in the frontlines
and in the rear under the firm leadership of the Commu-
nist Party and the Soviet Government.

"When the war broke out I found an application for
my knowledge and worked in the defence industry in the
Urals together with the collective of my Institute. We have
done what we could for the defence of our homeland

"For this work the Party and the Government have re-
warded me very generously and have given me to under-
stand that they trusted me.

"This gives me the right to submit this application for
membership in the Party. I beg you to allow me to go on
with my work and complete it under the banner of the Bol-
shevik Party.

307

"Hero of Socialist Labour, Academician Y. Paton."

Thus in his late years Paton turned from an opponent
of Soviet power into a Communist, an ardent supporter of
socialism. He was admitted to the Communist Party with-
out the usual probationary candidate's period.

I think that there must be people like Paton among you,
as well. And probably more than one! (Animation in the
hall, applause.)

Take the story of the big Soviet writer, Alexei Tolstoi.
You probably know that he had been a count. Opposed to
the Revolution, Tolstoi emigrated from Soviet Russia af-
ter the October Socialist Revolution. He came back to his
homeland during the "change of landmarks," when big
groups of the old bourgeois intelligentsia changed their
anti-Sovietism for pro-Soviet views. All know that this dis-
tinguished author became an ardent fighter for socialism.
In the last years of his life he was a Deputy to the
Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. I could cite thousands of
such examples.

If we had the appropriate devices, we would have seen
how in some of you your hearts are approaching us,
fighting against doubt. Some probably think, there's
Khrushehov telling us his Soviet fables. (Animation in the
hall)

I am telling you all this, dear comrades, because I would
like to do all I can to help those whose hearts have not yet
accepted the change which, fundamentally, has already
been consummated. After all, when scientists, when intellec-
tuals, have not yet accepted, or do not accept, the new, the
socialist, they must be helped, so that the transition to the
socialist way is shortened to the utmost, so that anxiety and
suffering are reduced to a minimum, in order that the
greatest possible number of intellectuals will be put solidly
on their feet as quickly as possible. And so that these in-
tellectuals should stand firmly on the socialist foundation!

Our Party has considerable experience in working with
the intelligentsia. Having received not a few bruises,

308

we have acquired a proper appreciation of many questions.
We are sharing this experience with you, as friends do.
Your situation is more favourable than the situation we
had, particularly in the first few years of Soviet power. I
remember having to talk with some intellectuals during
the Civil War. They were simply aghast at all that was
taking place. They looked at us, grimy workers and peas-
ants, and said: all you want is bread and potatoes; what
do you care about science, art, the ballet, and other things?
You are like goats in a garden— you'll trample everything
underfoot, and make everything black.

But now forty years have passed. If we are to speak
concretely abo-ut the ballet, we can wager that there is no
ballet elsewhere in the world like the Soviet ballet! If we
are to speak of science, it was our artificial earth satellites
that soared first into outer space. And that, you know, is
not just physics and mathematics. It requires the develop-
ment of a set of scientific trends and the solution of a
number of most difficult technical problems.

After the October Revolution, the interventionists tried
to crush Soviet power by force of arms. When that ven-
ture had failed, they began hoping that the Bolsheviks,
backed only by illiterate workers and peasants, would
fail to restore the economy and to revive culture, and that
they would be crushed by the difficulties.

Forty years have passed. And let anyone name a coun-
try, other than the Soviet Union, which trains as many
specialists as are graduated from Soviet institutions of
higher learning. While we annually train over 70,000
engineers and technicians, the United States trains' no
more than 25 or 26 thousand who, moreover, have nothing
to do owing to the economic recession obtaining in
America. It is the United States which is now intent on
catching up the Soviet Union in the fields of science and
the training of specialists.

We are as proud of our successes as a mother is over-
joyed when she teaches her child to pronounce its first

309

word, "mama," for we have taught a few blustering Amer-
ican leaders to say quite clearly that they must catch up
nan other than the Soviet Union, that is, a socialist coun-
try, in the field of scientific development and the training
of scientists and engineers. (Stormy applause.)

But we are absolutely certain that the United States will
not catch us up in this field. (Applause.) We do not ex-
plain that by any special personal qualities of Soviet
statesmen, but by the entire pattern of public education in
our country. At present, the Americans are studying our
system of education in secondary and university-level es-
tablishments and give it high marks. Whereas we, Soviet
leaders, think that there are still some weak links in that
system and are working right now on further improving
the training of specialists with a secondary and universi-
ty-level education, on improving the quality of that train-
ing. This will be our next "sputnik," and we shall launch
it without fail. (Applause.)

Our country has made tremendous achievements in de-
veloping science and culture, and secondary and higher
education. Now all can see that the Communists and the
working class set great store by science and show concern
for public education. There can be no progress unless there
is education and science. We Communists also set great
store by the old intelligentsia, because without it it would
be impossible to train new generations of intellectuals.
This is the reason why every effort must be made, after the
working class wins power, to develop new, young cadres
of intellectuals, while preserving the cadres of the old in-
telligentsia, and to develop them smoothly and flexibly,
without losses, so that they would loyally serve the working
class, their people, their homeland, in the building of the
new life on a socialist basis.

Our stay in your splendid country is coming to an end.
The Soviet people have always been very friendly
and brotherly to the Hungarian people. During our stay
in your country we saw that the Hungarian people have

3/0

the same feelings for the Soviet people. During these days
we have come to respect the working people of Hungary
still more deeply. Now I even fear that when we come to
the Soviet Union and speak about Hungary, it may cause
jealousy. We went to Hungary as representatives of the
Soviet Union. I am afraid that we shall return to the So-
viet Union as representatives of the Hungarian people.
(Stormy, prolonged applause.)

There is nothing contradictory in this, because there are
no contradictions between our peoples. We have a single
goal— to build socialism and communism. One may be a
patriot of the Soviet Union and be a patriot of socialist
Hungary as well. One may be a patriot of socialist Hun-
gary, and be a patriot of the Soviet Union, a patriot
of all the socialist countries. (Stormy, prolonged applause.)

Comrades, the whole world knows the peaceful foreign
policy of the Soviet Union. We shall carry on with it. We
shall do everything in our power to prevent a new war, to
ensure peaceful co-existence, to settle controversial issues
not by war, but by negotiation.! We want to compete with
the capitalist countries in peaceful endeavour, rather than
in the armaments race. We make our challenge to the cap-
italist world boldly: let's compete and see who develops
the productive forces to a higher level, who produces more
per head of population, who provides a higher material
and cultural standard for the people, and where better op-
portunities are created for the development of all of man's
abilities. The winner will be the system which provides
better conditions for the people.

We are sure that the more progressive socialist system
will win. The future belongs to our socialist system. Cap-
italism is on the downgrade, it is declining, although this
does not mean that it is already prostrate and that it has
turned up its toes. Much has still to be done to bring it to
that state. But it is inevitable, just as inevitable as the
death of a living body or plant after a definite period of
development. However, it will not come as a result of in-

311

terference by the socialist countries in the domestic affairs
of capitalist countries, but rather as a result of the strug-
gle waged against the exploiters by the working people in
each capitalist country. The socialist countries are helping
the working people of the capitalist countries in this
struggle by their example. j If we organize our forces bet-
ter, we shall make betteFprogress in economic and cul-
tural development, and the advantages of the socialist
system will be all the more apparent to everybody. (Stormy
applause.)

Let me tell you about a talk I had with the representa-
tive of a certain country, who visited the Soviet Union.
He told me this confidentially, so I shall not mention his
name.

"Mr. Khrushchov," he said, "when my friends learned
that I was going to your country, they tried to stop
me, saying that the Soviet Union was a communist
country, that you had communism, and that it was not
fitting for me to go to your country. But I did not heed
their advice. I came to your country, visited your cities,
saw your people and failed to find any trace of commu-
nism. I saw that you have good houses, that the people are
well dressed, and that, consequently, there is no com-
munism in your country. It is we who have commu-
nism, for almost all the people in our country walk
around half-naked and hungry." (Laughter in the hall.)

Such is the idea some people in the capitalist coun-
tries have about the Soviet Union, about communism,
under the influence of bourgeois propaganda. But the
truth will out, despite the deluge of lies and slander
circulated by the imperialists and their lackeys. At pres-
ent our country is approaching a level of development
when our economic achievements will enable us to cre-
ate an abundance of consumer goods. The ideas of com-
munism will then reach the minds of many people not
only through the study of Marxism-Leninism, but also by
way of our example- The working people of all countries

312

will see that only communism provides material and
spiritual benefits in abundance. That is why victory will
be ours. People who now seem unable to pronounce the
word "communism" without irony will then join us as well.
They will take our path without even being aware of it.
And they will go towards the goal, set by Marx, Engels
and Lenin, together with the entire people. (Stormy ap-
plause.)

We shall not foist our socialist system on other coun-
tries by force of arms. We are against interference by
any country in the domestic affairs of other countries.
But we are attacking capitalism from the flanks, from
economic positions, from the positions of the advantages
of our system. This will make certain the triumph of the
working class, the triumph of communism.

Thank you, dear comrades, for your invitation and for
the chance you have given me to speak before this vener-
able gathering. I thank you, I thank your President,
Comrade Rusznyak. (Stormy, prolonged applause. The
audience rises and hails the head of the Soviet Govern-
ment.)

SPEECH

AT MEETING OF CSEPEL IRON AND STEEL WORKS

DURING STAY IN HUNGARY OF SOVIET PARTY AND

GOVERNMENT DELEGATION

April 9, 1958

Dear Comrades and Friends,

Allow me to convey to you, the splendid collective of
Csepel workers, one of the foremost detachments of the
Hungarian working class, the hearty greetings of the
Soviet working class, of all our 200-million Soviet peo-
ple! (Stormy applause. Cries: "Hurrah!")

The workers of all countries and nations are brothers,
linked by bonds of class solidarity. They are the power-
ful army of the world proletariat, endowed with the great
historic mission of leading mankind to communism.

The working class expresses the age-old aspirations
of the popular masses and infuses boundless energy,
determination and the ability to overcome all difficulties
and hardships into the liberation movement.

The role of the working class is particularly great
after it takes power. We all know by our common exper-
ience what tremendous effort has to go into building the
new life, into building socialism, which is being impeded
in every possible manner by the forces of the old world.

In their attempts to perpetuate the capitalist system
wherever it still exists and to wrest power from the
working class wherever the latter has taken it, the reac-
tionary forces unleash their attacks primarily against
working-class rule, against the dictatorship of the pro-
S/4

letariat. They are trying to depict the dictatorship of the
proletariat as something of a scarecrow. They say it is a
brutal power. Indeed, it is by no means a soft power for the
exploiters, the enemies of the working people. As for the
working people themselves, however, the whole people,
to them it is a government of their own, which provides
democratic freedoms to the majority. The working people
would never have been able to rid themselves of exploit-
ers and to win their freedom without it.

What is the dictatorship of the proletariat? It is work-
ing-class leadership in the struggle to overthrow the
power of capital, to win and consolidate people's govern-
ment and build a communist society.

The working class is the most advanced and revolu-
tionary class. Its interests coincide with the vital inter-
ests of all the other sections of the toiling population.
The victory of the working class releases the peasantry
from landlord and kulak slavery, and the petty bourgeoi-
sie from the tyranny of the capitalist monopolies. It fur-
nishes its intellectuals with the happy opportunity of
creating cultural values for their people, rather than the
exploiters.

It is on this basis that the alliance of the working class
with all the non-proletarian sections of the working people
under the leadership of the working class takes shape.
And this alliance constitutes the substance of the dictator-
ship of the proletariat.

As repeatedly explained by the great leader and teach-
er of the working people, V. I. Lenin, the dictatorship of
the proletariat is a special form of class alliance be-
tween the proletariat and the other sections of the work-
ing people, primarily the peasantry, to crush completely
the resistance of the exploiters, to thwart all their at-
tempts of restoring capitalism, and to build up and con-
solidate the socialist system once and for all.

Our enemies' contention that the dictatorship of
the proletariat is nothing but violence, is absolutely false.

315

The capitalists, landlords and their henchmen resist
the will of the people and obstruct the efforts of the masses
to shape their life on a socialist basis. What to do? Don't
the people have a right to crush the resistance of the
exploiters, a negligible minority of society, so that the will
and the wishes of the toiling majority will triumph?

The workers and the working peasantry in our country
overthrew the rule of exploiters back in October 1917.
However, the landlords and capitalists tried in concert
with international reaction to restore the old regime. They
started a civil war, an intervention. What could we do?
Could we admonish them with kindly chatter about
democracy when they were shooting down thousands of
the finest workers and peasants? Or were we to crush
enemy resistance in the interests of the people? We pre-
served our socialist gains solely because the working
class, the working people of our country, did not hesitate
to crush the resistance of our class enemy.

Or take 1956, when a handful of fascist conspirators
and their hangers-on, inspired and guided by imperialist
reaction from outside, wanted by force of arms to deprive
Hungary's working class, its working people in general, of
power and to restore the capitalist system in your country.
Could you swallow it? Could your people's democracy —
which, as you know, is a variety of proletarian dictator-
ship— suffer the bloody orgy of the fascist elements when it
broke out? Of course, not! The uprising was crushed. The
workers and peasants, the working people of Hungary,
succeeded in rallying their forces and smashing the
counter-revolutionary conspirators with the assistance of
Soviet troops. They did not let the counter-revolutionaries
divert Hungary from its correct socialist path. (Stormy,
prolonged applause.)

Bourgeois propaganda picked on the repression of the
ringleaders of the anti-popular putsch by the people's
authorities in Hungary after the uprising, and described
the fascist reign of terror and rebellion as "an outburst of

316

democracy," raising a hue and cry about violence in Hun-
gary. Every honest worker knows that it is better to im-
prison a dozen ringleaders than to jeopardize the inter-
ests of the people. (Applause. "Hear, hear!")

When the fascist rebels, the counter-revolutionaries,
beat up workers and honest people faithful to the cause of
socialist construction, the imperialist reactionaries approv-
ingly looked on and supported them. Yet, when the revolu-
tionary forces of Hungary took determined action against
the fascist conspirators and enforced the policy of the
Hungarian Revolutionary Workers' and Peasants' Govern-
ment, imperialist reactionaries the world over howled
about violence in Hungary. All this speaks of the foul
methods used by the reactionaries in conducting their
anti-popular class policy that seeks to perpetuate the rule
of the capitalists over the working people.

Permit me, dear comrades, to read you an abstract from
V. I. Lenin's article, "Greetings to the Hungarian Work-
ers," written on May 27, 1919. He wrote: "This dictatorship
presupposes the ruthlessly severe, swift and resolute use
of force to crush the resistance of the exploiters, of the
capitalists, landlords and their underlings. Whoever does
not understand this is not a revolutionary, and must be
removed from the post of leader or adviser of the prole-
tariat."

"But," Lenin went on to say, "the essence of proletar-
ian dictatorship does not lie in force alone, or even main-
ly in force. Its quintessence is the organization and dis-
cipline of the advanced detachment of the working people,
of their vanguard, their sole leader, the proletariat, whose
object is to build socialism."

The dictatorship of the proletariat has extensive crea-
tive functions. It is the instrument of establishing the new,
socialist social order, the instrument of building up and
developing the socialist economic system, progressive cul-
ture, and the material abundance indispensable to man's
life and happiness.

317

; Imperialist politicians and ideologists, from whom the
modern revisionists take their cue, extol bourgeois democ-
racy. To listen to them, bourgeois democracy gives the
people complete power, equality and freedom. But life is a
grim teacher. The number of simpletons who believe that
there is equality between the workers and the capitalists
is shrinking. What "equality" can there be when the owners
of mills and factories throw their industrial and office
workers into the street by the thousands in defiance of the
people's vital interests. According to American press re-
ports, for example, there are more than six million fully
unemployed and more than three million partially unem-
ployed in the United States. They are willing to take any
job, but cannot find it. Whereas a small handful of monop-
olists live in luxury and enrich themselves upon the
suffering and grief of the people.

Bourgeois democracy is democracy for the rich. The po-
pular masses are kept well away from running production
and the state, and deciding social and political matters.
Thousands of obstacles are raised to prevent the working
class, the working people of the capitalist countries, from
electing their best representatives to Parliament or Con-
gress. 1

Whcrhas been elected to Parliament and who comprises
the Government in People's Hungary? It is workers —
metal workers, engineering workers, tanners, carpenters
and bakers — working peasants and men of science, liter-
ature and art. (Applause.) All of them are working peo-
ple. Previous speakers have said here that under people's
democracy 5,000 working people from the Csepel indus-
tries alone have become ministers, deputy ministers, dip-
lomats, managing directors, officers of the People's Army,
etc. (Applause.)

In the socialist countries, government is entirely in the
hands of the people. The working people here are free
from exploitation, unemployment and poverty. They have
inalienable rights to labour, recreation and rest, educa-

318

tion and old-age security. These are the true freedoms,
the true democratic rights. This is true democracy, de-
mocracy for the people. (Applause.)

Conscious of the weakness of their arguments against
the dictatorship of the proletariat, the imperialists
resort to all kinds of lies. They kept insisting mulishly,
for example, that in the autumn of 1956 it was the work-
ers themselves, rather than counter-revolutionary scoun-
drels, who allegedly opposed the people's democracy in
Hungary. It is easy to see why our enemies stand in need
of this vicious slander.

Everybody knows that the overwhelming majority of
Hungary's workers were loyal to the people's democracy.
Admittedly, there were also workers who, enthralled by
enemy propaganda, failed at first to get their bearings
and fell into the trap laid by the conspirators. But most
of them soon realized that they were being goaded into
action against their own interests.

We must not ignore the fact, of course, that in the last
few years the Hungarian working class has undergone
some changes. Its ranks have swelled considerably in
view of the rapid development of industry. Thousands of
people from the petty-bourgeois sections of the population,
and also from among former Horthy officials, gendarmes
and officers, have become workers. While wearing work-
ers' clothes, many of these offspring of the exploiting
classes have remained hostile to socialism. It was only
natural that when they got their chance these so-called
"workers" rose against the people's power.

As for the whole Hungarian working class proper,
which has had a severe schooling in the class struggle, it
could never side with the counter-revolution. It proved its
loyalty to socialism and proletarian internationalism by
its revolutionary deeds.

Veteran workers in the Csepel and other industries
persistently looked for arms to fight the rebels. But owing
to the inefficiency of the authorities and the treachery

319

of some of the officials, the workers failed to get arms.
By its foul acts the traitorous group of Imre Nagy disor-
ganized the workers' effort at the Csepel Works and in
other districts.

The loyalty of the Hungarian working class to socialism
was a decisive factor in the swift suppression of the
counter-revolutionary uprising and the elimination of its
consequences.

By thwarting the treacherous designs of the enemy and
preserving the socialist state, Hungary's masses upheld
their vital interests, their future, and did their duty by
the international working-class movement.

You were in bad trouble, comrades. The working people
of the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries did
not abandon you in distress. They came to your assist-
ance when the counter-revolutionaries tried, with the sup-
port of imperialist reaction, to drown your people's govern-
ment in rivers of blood of Hungarian workers, peasants
and honest working people. The counter-revolutionaries
tried to deprive the working people of Hungary of all
their socialist gains.

We had a difficult decision to make then. We saw that
the counter-revolutionaries had profited by the mistakes
and distortions of the former Hungarian leadership to win
over a certain section of the people by underhand means.
But we also saw how imperialist reaction was hastily
sending in forces from outside to Budapest, and how ac-
tively the imperialist agents had begun to operate, trying,
as in Guatemala, to overthrow the legal government in
your country and to establish their own order. After all,
it is not for nothing that the United States openly allots
hundreds of millions of dollars from its state budget for
subversion in the People's Democracies.

However, there is the difference that Guatemala borders
on Honduras, while Hungary's neighbours are socialist
countries. (Applause. "Hear, hear!") Hence the impe-
rialists did not have the advantages they enjoyed in

320

crushing the resistance of the Guatemalan people who
had risen in defence of their legal government.

Comrades, when Soviet troops were withdrawn from
Budapest the counter-revolutionaries had their murderous
fling. Fascist hoodlums massacred honest workers loyal
to socialism, and Communists, with brutal cruelty. They
killed people for having taken an active part in the social-
ist construction of Hungary and for resisting the fascist
rebels and defending their people's power.

When we were deciding the question of responding to
the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party and helping the
Hungarian Government with our armed forces, we knew
that a part of the workers had fallen in with the counter-
revolutionary uprising. We knew that we could be accused
of allegedly interfering in Hungary's domestic affairs with
our armed might. But, conscious of our internationalist
duty, we decided that no socialist country with the
strength and ability to help another fraternal country
could stand by and watch while workers, working peas-
ants, and Communists were being hung and shot by
Horthyists and other counter-revolutionary scoundrels. It
would have been unpardonable to remain on the side lines
and refuse help to Hungary's working class. (Prolonged
applause. "Hear, hear!")

We knew that the imperialist hydra would raise a mad
howl about our "interfering" in Hungarian domestic af-
fairs.

Yet we were sure that after a short time the working
class, the working peasantry and the intellectuals of Hun-
gary would acknowledge that we, the Soviet socialist
state, had had just one correct choice— to help our Hun-
garian class brothers. (Stormy, prolonged applause. Cries:
Hear, hear!", "Long live Soviet-Hungarian friendship!")

As for the hostile hue and cry about our interfering in
the suppression of the Hungarian counter-revolution, we
must know its true worth. Think back to 1919, when the
Hungarian working class rose up in arms and formed

321

Soviets. Did the imperialists leave you alone then? No,
they sent their troops and crushed the glorious Hungarian
revolution of 1919, drowning it in the blood of the people.
("Hear, hear!") They considered it legal, because it
was the blood of the Hungarian workers and peasants
that was shed for the triumph of the counter-revolution.
But when the forces of a fraternal country— the Soviet
Union — stepped forward to defend the working class, the
working people of Hungary, from the fascist rebels and
their imperialist bosses, a howl was raised that, allegedly,
we had been ungentlemanly.

No, Messrs. Imperialists, you have failed, and will al-
ways fail, to distort the truth with your hysterical howl-
ing. Again the money has gone to waste which you have
put into the blood-stained cause of the Hungarian counter-
revolution in the hope of tearing Hungary out of the camp
of socialist countries. {Stormy, prolonged applause.) We
have told you, and tell you now, good sirs, to abandon
your hopes of ever restoring capitalism in the socialist
countries. It is a hopeless undertaking to build one's
policy on such slippery ground. {Applause. "Hear,
hear!") By investing your capital in this unsound propo-
sition you will not only fail to get any interest, but are
bound also to lose what you have put in.

The people's government in Hungary and in the other
socialist countries has stood, and will stand firm. It is a
system that has established itself for all time. {Prolonged
applause. "Hear, hear!")

Comrades, here is our Party and Government delega-
tion, come to visit Hungary. We have gone to many places,
spoken to and met many people. We look proudly into your
eyes, the honest eyes of workers, peasants and the working
intellectuals of Hungary.

We have given you help, disinterested help, which in-
volved sacrificing our soldiers. {Cries: "Thank you.")
Then we had to help you as brothers to make good the
tremendous material losses suffered by Hungary's econo-

322

my in the counter-revolutionary putsch. The Soviet Union
and other socialist countries sent you large amounts of
goods and raw materials, so that your mills and factories
could operate normally and the workers, all of Hungary's
working people, could rapidly heal the wounds inflicted
upon the country by the rebels— so that socialist Hungarv
should grow, strengthen and develop. (Prolonged ap-
plause. Shouts of approval)

All this, comrades, is truly disinterested fraternal pro-
letarian assistance. And let our enemies draw the proper
conclusions from it. All their exertions are inevitably
doomed to failure.

The attempted fascist uprising in Hungary had far-
reaching aims. And it was no accident that the counter-
revolutionary outbreak in Hungary coincided in time with
the Anglo-French-Israeli attack on Egypt. The forces of
world reaction, the forces of imperialism, tried to test our
determination, our ability to repel their aggressive efforts.
And they did receive the rebuff they deserved. They did
receive a good object lesson. {Animation. Applause.
Shouts of approval.)

None should doubt that the Soviet Union will help its
friends with all the strength it possesses if the imperial-
ists try a new provocation against the socialist countries
(Applause. Shouts of approval.)

Comrades, the forces of socialism are growing through-
out the world. The basis of these forces is the mighty
socialist camp. Today, one-third of mankind follows the
path of socialist development. The socialist countries are
steadily increasing their economic power on the basis of
mutual assistance and support. The unitv and fraternal
co-operation of the peoples of the socialist" countries make

nabl and the CamP 3S a Wh°le Str°ng and imPre^

Our countries are at different stages in their advance
towards their cherished goal-communism. Socialist so-
ciety has already been built in the Soviet Union. Hungary

323

is still going through socialist transformations. But we
march along a single road, illumined by the teaching
of Marxism-Leninism. [Prolonged applause. "Hear, hear! )
We have common interests and aspirations. We
rejoice at Hungary's successes in building socialism, and
are happy that her working people are rallying closer
round their militant vanguard— the Hungarian Socialist
Workers' Party and their Revolutionary Workers' and
Peasants' Government. This close solidarity of the work-
ing people with the Party and Government is a token of
popular strength, a guarantee of their invincibility.

One of the chief and decisive advantages of our social-
ist way of life is the profound daily concern shown by all
society for the working man, for improving his living con-
ditions. The striving to satisfy the material and spiritual
requirements of the people more and more fully constitutes
the substance of the activity of the working class in the
socialist countries and of its Marxist-Leninist parties. It is
precisely with this aim in view that we should concentrate
our efforts on achieving victory in the economic com-
petition with the most developed capitalist countries. And
we are certain that in this, too, victory shall be ours. [Pro-
longed applause.)

Comrades, the Csepel Works is well known in our coun-
try. The Soviet people know it to be a large modern
enterprise— an important centre of Hungarian industry
and industrial culture. The many thousands working in
Csepel, that industrial hub of Hungary, have rich revolu-
tionary traditions.

Dear comrades, allow me now to share with you some
of the impressions I have received on touring your works.
[Applause.) You have a huge plant, a fine collective, solid
and devoted to its cause, the cause of revolution and
socialism. [Applause.)

Here, among you, we really feel as much at home as
in our own proletarian family, as in our Soviet plants
among Soviet workers. The only difference is that you

324

speak Hungarian and we speak Russian. As to the rest,
I feel that we live upon common thoughts, common aims
and common aspirations. (Stormy applause.)

The principal task of the working class in the socialist
countries today is to make better, more productive use of
our forces, so that more is produced per worker than in
the capitalist countries. We do not need to work for this
by expending greater physical effort, but by stepping up
mechanization, improving production and introducing
specialization and automation. We must strive to reduce
the working day, rather than to prolong it, and to increase
output per worker. It is only by raising the productivity
of labour that we shall beat capitalist production, dem-
onstrate the superiority of the socialist system, and
thereby create the conditions for building a communist
society.

'in capitalist production automation and automatic lines
lead to greater exploitation of the working class and great-
er unemployment. It is only the monopolists who benefit
by it. The unemployed ousted from industry by automa-
tion swell the reserve army of labour which gives the
monopolists a chance to intensify the exploitation of the
working class. I

In the socialist countries technical progress serves in the
interests of the entire working class, the working people,
the state. And do not take it amiss, comrades, if I tell you
that looking at your plant from that standpoint, it fails
by far to meet the requirements of modern socialist pro-
duction.

You produce motor cycles, bicycles, pipes, drilling and
cutting machines. Perhaps you produce thimbles and pins
as well.

Voice: No, not any longer.

There is very little that you don't produce! Some of our
plants, it is true, are no better off. I say this, because it
is high time to introduce automation in our industry to
convert it to automatic lines. And that is possible only

325

with greater industrial co-operation between the socialist
countries, with specialization of our plants. This
will enable them to specialize in certain parts, certain
units, making more productive use of labour. Yet, this
business is going ahead very slowly with us. We Marxist-
Leninists have a good grasp of these questions, but at
times do too little still to improve specialization and in-
dustrial co-operation.

The other socialist countries stand to gain more from
specialization and co-operation, because the Soviet Union
is so vast that its capacity for production and consump-
tion enables it to specialize and co-operate broadly within
its own frontiers. It is the other socialist countries which
need co-operation. However, all of them want to co-oper-
ate primarily with the Soviet Union. For example, Hun-
gary wants to co-operate with the Soviet Union, and
Rumania and Albania also want to co-operate with the
Soviet Union alone, and show no particular leaning to-
wards co-operating among themselves.

I think, dear comrades, that this is the key issue, because
raising the productivity of labour does not mean giv-
ing the worker a bigger spade or a bigger hammer. It is
not with the maximum expenditure of muscular strength
that we should work, but rather with our heads, because
that enables us to produce machines to do a worker's work.
The worker must no more than operate these machines.
This can only be achieved through mechanization.

Dear comrades, tomorrow we leave for home. We should
have liked to stay longer with you, but there is work to
be done in Moscow. Speaking today at the Hungarian
Academy of Sciences, I said that during our tour of your
country we have grown very fond of the Hungarian peo-
ple. I came to you as a representative of the Soviet Union
■ — to represent my country, the working class, the working-
peasantry, the working people of the Soviet Union in
Hungary. But now, after returning from Hungary to my
country, I'm afraid that I shall be rebuked for represent-

326

ing the Hungarian people in the Soviet Union. {Stormy
applause.)

But, comrades, since the people of the Soviet Union, the
people of Hungary and the peoples of all the socialist
countries face one and the same task— the task of advanc-
ing towards communism under the Marxist-Leninist ban-
ner—it seems to me, that there is and can be no antago-
nism here. Quite the reverse. The intimacy, the unity of
our peoples and countries, accords with the interests both
of the Soviet Union and Hungary.

Comrades, we are working hand in hand with you to
build communism. The Soviet people will come to com-
munism together with you, the working people of Hun-
gary. It is out of the question that we, Communists and
internationalists of the Soviet Union, the first to seize
power and to engage in the great cause of communist con-
struction, should come to communism alone, and, to use a
figure of speech, should eat ham every day while the rest
look on and lick their chops. That would be wrong.

Where would the proletarian solidarity, the internation-
alism, of that socialist country be then? The country with
the more developed economy, capable of raising the living
standard of its people still higher, must by all means help
the other socialist countries to level out their standard
of life. The scale of production in the countries of the
world socialist system will doubtlessly level out with time.
All the countries will rise to the level of the foremost
ones, which are also not going to mark time. We must
enter the communist world all together.

Good-bye, comrades! We wish you, all those present
here and all the working people of socialist Hungary,
fresh successes in your work and private life. (Stormy,
prolonged applause. The people scan: "Long live friend-
ship, long live Khrushchov!")

We wish you, our class brothers, the workers of Red
Csepel, that your Csepel should always be the stronghold

327

of Hungary's socialist gains and the terror of all the
enemies of socialist Hungary. {Prolonged applause.)

We wish ardently that the class consciousness of the
Hungarian workers, the true masters of their country,
should grow and gain strength, that their intolerance of
hostile acts should not weaken, and that the fraternal
alliance of the working class and Hungary's working
peasantry should constantly solidify.

Long live the working class and the working peasantry
of Hungary! {Prolonged applause.)

Long live the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party— the
militant leader of the working class and all the working
people of the Hungarian People's Republic! Long live the
Central Committee of the Hungarian Socialist Workers'
Party with Comrade Kadar at its head! {Prolonged, stormy
applause, shouts: "Long live the Party!")

Long live the Hungarian Revolutionary Workers' and
Peasants' Government, headed by Comrade Miinnich!
{Stormy approval and applause.)

Long live the Presidium of the Hungarian People's Re-
public and its Chairman Comrade Dobi! {Stormy approval
and applause.)

Long live the friendship of the working class and all
the working people of Hungary and the Soviet Union!
{Prolonged stormy applause, cries: "Long live Soviet-
Hungarian friendship!", "Moscow — Budapest!")

Long live the inviolable unity of all the socialist coun-
tries! {Prolonged applause, cries: "Hurrah!")

Long live the international solidarity of the working
class of all countries! Long live proletarian internation-
alism! {Stormy applause, ovation, cries: "Long live Khru-
shchov!")

{The ovation continues long after N. S. Khrushchov
ends his speech. The workers scan: "Khrushchov — Kadar!",
"Moscow— Budapest!", "Friendship!")

SPEECH

ON DEPARTURE FROM BUDAPEST

OF SOVIET PARTY AND GOVERNMENT DELEGATION

April 10, 1958

Dear Comrade Kadar,

Dear Comrade Dobi,

Dear Comrade Munnich,

Dear Comrades and Friends,

The visit of the Soviet Party and Government delega-
tion to the Hungarian People's Republic has come to an
end. Before leaving for home I should like, dear friends,
once again to thank you and all the working people of
Hungary on behalf of all the members of our delegation
for your warm consideration and hearty hospitality.

We are leaving with a store of unforgettable impres-
sions of all we have seen and of what we have had a
chance to learn in your wonderful country.

The newspapers today have published the Joint
Statement about the successful negotiations conducted
between the Soviet Party and Government delegation and
the leadership of the Hungarian People's Republic. These
negotiations have clearly demonstrated the identity of
our views on all questions of international and internal
policy pursued by the Soviet Union and Hungary. There
were no differences, nor controversial issues between us,
and there are none now. During the negotiations both par-
ties reaffirmed their firm resolve to continue developing
our friendly relations, based on the sacred principles of

329

equality, respect for the territorial integrity and independ-
ence of our countries, and the will to advance further
the economy, science and culture of our peoples, and
achieve higher living standards through mutual assistance
and support.

The impressions we gained in meeting you, dear com-
rades— the workers, peasants and working intelligentsia
of Hungary — will linger long in our memories as a sym-
bol of the profound and heartfelt friendship that has for
all time linked the peoples of the Soviet Union and the
Hungarian People's Republic. No intrigues of imperialist
reaction have been able to destroy our intimate friendship.
Wherever we went — to the steelworkers of Sztalinvaros
and Diosgyor, the miners of Tatabanya, the workers of the
Csepel Works, the working peasants of Karcag, the textile
workers of Szeged, the Hungarian intelligentsia in the
Academy of Sciences, or passing Hungarian towns and
villages — we invariably enjoyed a hearty reception only
to be expected from genuine friends. The mammoth Buda-
pest meeting of many thousands of working people on
April 4 — the day of your fine holiday, Liberation Day —
was a moving demonstration of the inviolability of Soviet-
Hungarian friendship.

We are taking home with us the warmest fraternal
greetings of the Hungarian people to the peoples of the
Soviet Union. On returning to Moscow we shall do what
we have been asked to do by the Hungarian working
people and tell the Soviet people that in the people of
Hungary they have a reliable and loyal ally in the struggle
for happiness and a better life, in building socialism and
communism, and in their efforts to secure world peace.

We have seen for ourselves what big successes the Hun-
garian people have scored in all spheres of life in the
thirteen years of popular rule in Hungary. Bountiful shoots
of socialism are burgeoning everywhere on the fertile
Hungarian soil, and no weeds will ever be able to choke
them.

330

We are departing with the firm conviction that the Hun-
garian working class with its splendid fighting traditions
and its wealth of revolutionary experience, will under the
leadership of its vanguard— the Hungarian Socialist
Workers' Party— bring the construction of socialism and
communism to a triumphant end. And we are certain that
if anyone should again try to stand in its way, the work-
ing class, the working people of Hungary will hurl back
the enemy and demonstrate once again that there was, is,
and will be a proletarian dictatorship in Hungary.

On behalf of all our Party and Government delegation
allow me, dear comrades, to wish you, to wish all the
working people of the Hungarian People's Republic, fur-
ther successes in building socialism for their country's
good.

Long live and flourish the people's democratic Hun-
gary!

Long live and flourish the inviolable fraternal friend-
ship of the peoples of the Hungarian People's Republic
and the Soviet Union!

Long live the great unity of the countries of the social-
ist camp!

Long live world peace!

Good-bye, dear comrades and friends!

Good-bye, dear people of Budapest!

(N. S. Khrushchov's speech was repeatedly interrupted
by stormy applause, shouts of "Hurrah!", and cries of
greeting.)

SPEECH

AT MEETING ON RETURN

OF SOVIET PARTY AND GOVERNMENT DELEGATION

FROM HUNGARIAN PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC

April 10, 1958

Dear Comrades Muscovites, allow me on my own behalf
and on behalf of my comrades, the members of the Soviet
Party and Government delegation that has been to Hun-
gary, to thank you for this warm welcome and for your
good wishes. (Prolonged applause.)

Allow me to thank Comrade Antonov, a fitter from the
Vladimir Ilyich Works, Comrade Trapeznikov, Correspond-
ing Member of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R.,
who has spoken here on behalf of the scientists and intel-
lectuals, and Comrade Kolomeitseva, a girl studying at
the Moscow Power Institute, who has spoken on behalf
of the young people of Moscow, for the kind words they
have addressed to us. (Applause.)

We have just come from Budapest, the splendid capital
of the Hungarian People's Republic. We spent eight days
with our Hungarian friends.

The Soviet Party and Government delegation visited
many cities, towns and villages, factories and agricultural
co-operatives and met representatives of the Hungarian
intellectuals. Everywhere the Hungarian working people
asked us to convey warm and fraternal greetings and best
wishes to the Soviet people. (Prolonged applause.)

When the Soviet Party and Government delegation was
on its way to Budapest, we were sure that the Hungarian

332

people would give us a cordial and fraternal welcome as
ambassadors of the Soviet people. The friendship of our
peoples has weathered many trials and tribulations, and
in the crucible of the common struggle for the bright fu-
ture of our countries it has been forged still stronger. For
the sake of this friendship thousands of glorious sons
of our country, who shed their blood to free the Hungar-
ian people, sacrificed the dearest thing man has — life
itself.

Many Hungarian internationalists fell on the battle-
fields of the Civil War, fighting shoulder to shoulder with
the workers and peasants of our country to make the
Great October Socialist Revolution triumph, to strengthen
the young Soviet Republic.

We regard the results of the visit by the Soviet Party
and Government delegation as remarkable. In the Hun-
garians we met real comrades-in-arms and friends in the
struggle for our common cause, for socialism, for com-
munism. (Stormy applause.)

Comrades, the meeting held in Budapest on April 4
made a great and unforgettable impression on us, although
we Muscovites are accustomed to such huge gather-
ings and have "seen a thing or two," as the saying goes.
About 500,000 people attended the meeting to celebrate
the 13th anniversary of Hungary's liberation from the
Hitler invaders.

Representatives of foreign states, bourgeois correspond-
ents and photographers were also present. They certain-
ly had a "good time" there (animation in the hall), watch-
ing the close solidarity of Hungary's working people with
the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party and the Govern-
ment of People's Hungary.

We have also been to Sztalinvaros, to the Danube Iron
and Steel Works, which has been built there since the
war. The working people of Hungary take pride in this
big industrial establishment, built in accordance with the
designs of Soviet specialists and equipped with modern

333

machinery, the greater part of which was made in the
Soviet Union. The workers there come from all parts of
the country and they work well, and harmoniously. The
meeting with the working people of Sztalinvaros also
made a great impression on us.

We visited Tatabanya, which is one of the biggest min-
ing towns in Hungary. At the pits there we had frank and
friendly conversations with the miners. And I must tell
you that the miners there are just like the miners in the
Donbas, Moscow, Karaganda or other coal-mining areas.
They have the same militant, fighting spirit. They are our
brothers. I addressed them on behalf of our delegation.

The Tatabanya miners, when talking to us, expressed
their fraternal feelings for our people, for our country.
One miner came up to me and said:

"Comrade Khrushchov, (he spoke in Russian) I fought
for three years in your country against the whiteguards,
I also served in Comrade Frunze's bodyguard."

I shook his hand and thanked him for fighting shoul-
der to shoulder with our finest sons for Soviet power,
against the whiteguards and the interventionists. And, of
course, I could not refrain from saying to him:

"Well, dear friend, you fought well in our country
against the whiteguards and you guarded Mikhail 'Frunze
praiseworthily, but you poorly guarded your own gains,
the gains of your own people. The counter-revolutionary
rebels took advantage of the mistakes and distortions com-
mitted by the former leaders of People's Hungary and
started to perpetrate outrages, and you gave those scound-
rels free rein."

To this he replied with an earthy Russian word which
required no further interpretation. {Laughter. Applause.)

"Yes," he said, "that was just how it was. But we won't
let the enemies twist us round their little fingers again."
(Stormy applause.)

It was the same in Sztalinvaros and in the other towns
and villages of Hungary which we managed to visit. We

334

knew that bourgeois correspondents had given a special
slant to our visit. Perhaps the Hungarians would give the
Soviet delegation the cold shoulder. What a world scan-
dal that would be! Comrades, there was indeed a world
scandal, but not for us. It was a scandal for those who
plotted their black deeds against the people of Hun-
gary.

We realized, of course, that part of the Hungarian pop-
ulation retained some feelings of dissatisfaction, follow-
ing the events of the autumn of 1956. In deciding at that
time to help the Revolutionary Workers' and Peasants'
Government, the working class and the working people of
Hungary, we Communists and revolutionaries realized
what that signified. But, comrades, we gave our help to
the Hungarians, to our brothers. Had we failed to do so,
we would have disgraced ourselves in the eyes of the en-
tire working class, we would have covered ourselves with
shame in the eyes of the revolutionary forces of the work-
ing class. [Stormy applause.)

I was told the following story. In one family the father
and mother were planning to go out to meet with the So-
viet Party and Government delegation. Their little boy
remonstrated with them.

"What do you mean by going out and leaving me be-
hind?" he asked.

He was told that a Soviet delegation, led by Khru-
shehov, had arrived and that, together with other workers,
they were going to attend a meeting at which they would
see the Soviet Union's representatives. Then the boy asked:

"Tell me, whom did Khrushehov back in the October
days in Hungary when the fascists revolted?"

He was told that Khrushehov had done the right thing
and had been against the counter-revolution. On hearing
this, the little boy said:

"If that's the case, you can go— I'll allow it." {Anima-
tion in the hall. Applause.)

When we were at Red Csepel, many working men and

335

women also came up to me, as they did to the other mem-
bers of the Soviet delegation. I remember how working
women came up and began to express their feelings. One
of them said to me:

"Thank you, Comrade Khrushchov, and give our thanks
to your people. You saved our lives and the lives of our
children by your help," she said. (Applause.)

Comrades, we also went to some of the villages.

We arrived in Karcag. Many peasants, and also arti-
sans and office workers, had gathered for a meeting there.
In that district centre about 80 per cent of the peasants
have joined the co-operatives. Our delegation visited the
Peace Agricultural Co-operative, where we had some inter-
esting talks with the peasants who belonged to it. In many
of the villages the Hungarians are firmly in favour of the
co-operatives and are working well. It is true that, taking
the country as a whole, there are as yet few peasants in
the co-operatives. But one must not hurry too much in this
matter. Some really good spade-work has to be done in
order to convince the peasants of the advantages of col-
lective farming. The attitude among the peasants is very
good. It should be mentioned that at the time of the counter-
revolutionary insurrection the Hungarian peasants sup-
ported the people's power and did not allow themselves to
be provoked.

Today the working peasantry of Hungary continue to
give vigorous backing to the policy of the Socialist Work-
ers' Party and the Government.

We also had a meeting with scientists at the Hungarian
Academy of Sciences. The impression we got was that Hun-
gary's scientists are a reliable support of the people's dem-
ocratic system. They correctly understand their tasks
and are prepared to serve their people, to take an active
part in building the new life. (Applause.)

That was a very interesting meeting. The scientists spoke
well; they said very many warm words about the So-
viet Union and spoke about friendly feelings for the So-

336

viet people and the friendship between Hungarian and So-
viet scientists. In addition to this meeting, we had inter-
esting and useful talks with many representatives of the
Hungarian intelligentsia.

The intelligentsia is an intermediate stratum between
the major classes. In a moment of sharp class struggle it
finds itself in a difficult position. In the past we probably
made no few mistakes in our work with the intelligentsia.
After all, we were the first to carry out a socialist revolu-
tion and had no experience whatsoever in building social-
ism. Forty years of Soviet power have gone by, and now
it has become clearer to us that one must be more atten-
tive and understanding with the intelligentsia during a
radical change, the breaking up of a social and state
system as a result of a revolution, when power passes
into the hands of the working class and the exploitation
of man by man is abolished. Now the intelligentsia of
Hungary has actively joined in the work of building social-
ism.

Our meeting with the Csepel workers was exceptionally
cordial. The Csepel Works is very large. In Hungary it is
called the bulwark, the heart of the revolution. And that
really is the case.

Many thousands of workers assembled there yesterday
for a meeting. They warmly welcomed us representatives
of the Soviet people and expressed their sincere sentiments
of friendship to our country.^!! was there that I drew
the attention of bourgeois correspondents to the fact that
they distort our statements. Let them not take offence, but
most of them serve the one who pays the money, and if you
don't write the way the boss wishes, he won't pay you for
it. (Animation in the hall. Applause.) That is how things
stand in the capitalist world.] I understand their position
but, nevertheless, I decided to say to them:

"Look, here are thousands of Csepel workers. Their eyes
light up with good will towards us and hatred for the ene-
mies of socialism. You expected that Khrushchov would

337

come to Csepel and be torn limb from limb. See how they
welcome the delegation from the Soviet Union!"

Red Csepel is an indestructible bulwark of socialist
Hungary and if anyone there were to come out against
the friendship that has developed and is growing between
the peoples of the Soviet Union and Hungary, he would
hardly leave the works alive. (Applause.)

In speaking of bourgeois journalists, I do not want to
insult them.

But I cannot pass by when they distort the facts. When
some people want to kick us, we cannot behave as if we
are oblivious to this. No, my line gentlemen, you should
realize that we do not follow the biblical precept: If one
smites you on the left cheek, turn the other cheek.
No, we prefer to act thus: If we are given one blow, we
shall give two in return. (Animation in the hall Ap-
plause.)

Comrades,

The meetings our delegation had with the working peo-
ple of Hungary welled up into a demonstration of the un-
breakable friendship between the peoples of Hungary and
the Soviet Union. The workers, the working peasantry and
the intellectuals of Hungary show a keen interest in every-
thing that is being done in the Soviet Union. The Soviet
Union enjoys exceedingly high prestige in Hungary. To-
day the Hungarians are our staunch friends and brothers.
We, comrades, must do everything possible to cement still
more strongly this friendship and co-operation between the
Soviet and Hungarian peoples. This will benefit our two
countries and the entire socialist camp, the entire revolu-
tionary working class.

The Hungarian People's Republic has made great prog-
ress in building socialism. The aftermath of the counter-
revolutionary insurrection has been eradicated in all
spheres of the republic's life, including the national eco-
nomy as well.

338

During the talks we saw for ourselves once again that
the Hungarians are very understanding and are our good
friends. They did not request anything, did not lay claim
to anything. They sincerely thanked us for the help given.
The Soviet Union, the Chinese People's Republic and all
the countries of the socialist camp did indeed render them
assistance to the best of their ability. In compliance with
the request of our Hungarian friends, I convey to you, to
all Soviet people, the gratitude of the Hungarian work-
ing people for the fraternal assistance given them. (Pro-
longed applause.)

People's Hungary, of course, needs assistance. We, the
Soviet Union, must continue to help not only Hungary but
all the fraternal socialist countries so that our camp may
always be strong and base itself upon a well-developed
industry and a mighty economy. Then our common cause
will be even further promoted.

. We consider it our duty to tell you that during the talks
and our meetings with the members of the Central Com-
mittee of the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party and the
members of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee
and with the members of the Government of the Hungarian
People's Republic, our conversations were frank and amic-
able. You can see that yourselves from the Joint Soviet-
Hungarian Statement published today. Such sincerity,
such complete understanding can exist only between the
closest friends, between brothers.

We have seen for ourselves that the Hungarian work-
ing people are solidly behind the Socialist Workers' Party,
whose authority has grown immeasurably. The people of
Hungary stand firm on socialist positions and vigorously
support their Socialist Workers' Party and its Central Com-
mittee, led by Comrade Janos Radar. (Applause.)

The Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party is successfully
making good the mistakes made by the former Party lead-
ership. And, as you know, there were quite a few mis-
takes.

339

Comrade Kadar and other friends told me in what a dif-
ficult predicament the working people of Hungary had
found themselves when the revisionists reared their heads
with impunity. Central Committee Secretary Gero gets up
and says one thing; Central Committee member Losonczy,
a revisionist, gets up and says something else. The former
speaks in the name of the Party and the latter speaks in
the name of the Party. "Whom are we to believe? Whom
are we to follow?" These were questions that were put not
only by non-Party workers and peasants, but by Party
members as well.

That was just one aspect characterizing the situation
which the counter-revolutionaries took advantage of to stir
up rebellion against the people's power. While flagrantly
distorting socialist law and undertaking reprisals against
honest workers, the old leadership in Hungary at the same
time failed to see how the enemies of socialism were weav-
ing a conspiracy against the people.

The counter-revolution utilized all the distortions com-
mitted in Hungary in order to fight against the working
class and socialism.

Today the Hungarian comrades have taken the course of
resolutely rectifying the mistakes and distortions of the for-
mer leadership of the Party and the country. At the present
time the leading core of the Hungarian Socialist Workers'
Party and the Revolutionary Workers' and Peasants' Gov-
ernment consists of staunch revolutionaries, Communists
who are devoted to the cause of the working class, to the
cause of socialism. They are ready to devote all their ener-
gies to serving their people. They are our loyal friends
who firmly adhere to the Marxist-Leninist position of in-
ternationalism and are waging a struggle against impe-
rialism, against betrayal. They are not glossing over ques-
tions of class struggle; they are not currying favour with
those who, in seeking to shove off on them goods that
have no market, would like to set the Hungarian and So-
viet peoples at loggerheads. These people are guided by

340

revolutionary ideas; they are guided by Marxist-Leninist
teachings and they know full well that anyone who wants
to be a revolutionary must do everything for the victory
of the working-class cause, the cause of the working peo-
ple, for the victory of communism, and must in no case
adapt himself to the imperialists. One cannot sit on
two stools at the same time, and if one tries to do so he
will inevitably fall — and not where he should. (Applause.)

During our stay in Hungary we had the opportunity of
becoming more closely acquainted with many Hungarian
leaders.

Previously I had only a slight acquaintance with Com-
rade Kadar, the First Secretary of the Central Committee
of the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party. We met only
after he had come to the leadership of the Party and the
country. Now we have spent eight days together and I
have become convinced that he is the kind of a comrade
upon whom the Hungarian working class can firmly rely
—a comrade who will not let it down, who will always
march together with the entire revolutionary working
class, with all the Communist parties, and who is fear-
lessly leading the working class of Hungary to final vic-
tory, to the building of communist society. (Applause.)

Comrade Ferenc Munnich, Chairman of the Hungarian
Revolutionary Workers' and Peasants' Government, is de-
serving of respect and recognition. He is an old Party
member who fought in the ranks of the international Hun-
garian units against the whiteguards during the Civil War
in Soviet Russia. I have known him for a long time. In
1930, when I was studying in the Industrial Academy and
he was working in Moscow, the two of us, undergoing
military refresher training in the Moscow Proletarian Di-
vision, served in the same platoon and even shared the
same tent. After the victory of the working class in Hun-
gary, through the fault of the former Hungarian leader-
ship no post corresponding to his knowledge and experi-
ence was found for him in the Government. And it is only

now that his knowledge and experience have been properly
appreciated.

Comrade Miinnich is devoted to the cause of the work-
ing class, to the cause of his people, and he is truly worthy
of full support, both from the Hungarian working class
and from us, in his efforts for our common cause. (Ap-
plause.)

Comrades, we feel that the situation in the Hungarian
People's Republic is now very good. The state of affairs at
the industrial enterprises we visited is the same as at our
own better enterprises; you sense a great uplift, a desire
to devote every effort to peaceful construction. The
workers and all the Hungarian working people desire peace.
The prestige of the Soviet Union, as a country unstint-
ingly striving to do away with the cold war and ensure
world peace, is very high among the Hungarian working-
class, the working peasantry and the intellectuals. The
Hungarian people realize full well that peace does not de-
pend only on the efforts of the socialist countries. We must
therefore be vigilant.

The Soviet Union has made many constructive moves to
ease international tension. But so far we cannot be too
hopeful, because the opposite side is twisting and turn-
ing all the time and is raising more and more new
obstacles to the settlement of the paramount question of
the present day — the problem of disarmament.

We have already taken the well-known decision to end
unilaterally the testing of nuclear weapons and we have
called on the United States and Britain to follow suit.
But we are told: Control is needed. All well and good —
we agreed. But we are again told in reply: No, something
more is still needed. The matter is very simple. The West-
ern Powers do not want to attain agreement and there-
fore seek to make such conditions as cannot be met. The
question is perfectly clear. The scientists of the entire
world say that you cannot keep atomic and hydrogen ex-
plosions secret and that with existing technical means

342

they are bound to be detected. Yet U.S. statesmen con-
tinued to claim that such explosions could be kept
secret. However, they were forced by incontestable scien-
tific information to admit that this could not be done. Now
they again say that it is possible to carry out nuclear ex-
plosions in secret. As you see, they chop and change at
every turn.

The disarmament problem is a knotty one. But we shall
not lose hope. Our course in the struggle for peace, for
disarmament, for a ban on nuclear weapons is crystal clear.
All we have to say to the gentlemen who are against abol-
ishing the cold war, is: We have plenty of patience.
And it is of no avail to use pressure Land intimidation
in discussions with us. You will squeeze nothing out of
us. We don't want war and we shall do everything
to prevent it. But we shall keep prepared for war. (Ap-
plause.)

You know that American aircraft carrying atom and hy-
drogen bombs are continuing to patrol the skies above
many countries in Europe, and not only in Europe. Is this
not a criminal action? The horrible danger of destruction
in peacetime hangs over men and women. Common sense
protests against such recklessness. But the American mo-
nopolists say they are doing this for the sake of security.
They seem to think they can do what they like, that no one
can stand up to the billionaires, that everyone must quake
before them. They have subjugated many capitalist coun-
tries, order them around, and would like to boss the whole
world.

Only the Soviet Union, People's China and the other
countries of the socialist camp do not kowtow to them and
conduct an independent policy— a policy of peace. Control
is proposed to us. We are in favour of control. But they
want the kind of control that would be tantamount to inter-
ference in the domestic affairs of our state, infringement
O'f our sovereignty. In short, give them an inch and they'll
take a mile. We are in favour of establishing con-

343

trol, but we say: Don't fly where you shouldn't. The holy
grave of Gandhi is in India. If you want to visit this grave
you must, in deference to the country's traditions, remove
your shoes and approach it barefoot.

We were there and respected this tradition. So you,
gentlemen, ought to respect not only your own money-
bags. Respect the traditions of other peoples and remem-
ber that they, too, have their own pride, their own inter-
ests, and wish to ensure their own security. (Applause.)

The ruling circles of the Western Powers say: Let's agree
to have our aircraft fly over your country and your aircraft
over ours. But we have no desire to fly over your country
and don't want your breath over our country. (Stormy
applause.)

The Soviet Union has already made proposals which,
had they been accepted by the Western Powers, could have
led to an easing of international tension, to the establish-
ment of greater confidence between states. We proposed a
definite zone for aerial inspection: 800 kilometres on one
side and 800 kilometres on the other. But we are told:
This is not enough. The imperialists desire that there be
no Soviet power. Well, my dear fellows, we would also like
there to be no capitalist system in your countries. But this
is something quite different; this is the domestic affair of
the people of each country. (Applause.)

Comrades, the peoples of all countries want peace and
we must ensure this peace by all the means at our dispos-
al. But we shall not be intimidated. The ruling circles of
the Western countries want to wear us down, to overcome
us by hook or by crook. They think: If the Soviet Union
proposes to disarm, then, most likely, it is in a predicament
that couldn't be worse. For 40 years you have been wait-
ing for such a state of affairs, but it does not materialize,
nor will it ever come about. You will never see such a sit-
uation in which we prostrate ourselves before you and
surrender to your mercy. No, we wish to negotiate on
equal terms, maintaining our dignity, and relying on our

344

economic and moral factors. Only on those terms can we
converse with you. (Applause.)

If you continue to be obstinate and raise obstacles to the
settlement of international issues by peaceful means, the
peoples will, all the same, demand an end to the cold war
and the stopping of the arms race. The cold war advocates
are finding the going harder with every year, and every
month that goes by. Today not only Labourites in Britain,
but even some of the Conservatives say: The Russians do
not want war.

They have already become convinced that we do not
want war. To make war means killing people. But who has
any need of that? What can that provide? War means ruin;
we shall kill, and be killed. Other means of struggle
against the class enemy exist, and in this struggle the
working class will be victorious.

Now everyone sees that our economy is advancing, that
labour productivity is rising, and that per capita output
is growing. The time will soon come, gentlemen of Amer-
ica, when you yourselves will become convinced of the
superiority of the Soviet system. (Applause.) We shall
achieve a per capita output of consumer goods higher than
in the most advanced capitalist countries. On the basis
of present calculations we can say that before much time
goes by we shall clear the highest hurdle of the capitalist
countries— shall exceed the level of production achieved by
the United States of America. What will you gentlemen say
then? (Applause.)

The imperialists are frightening the working people with
communism. But when we achieve the very highest level
of production and standard of living of the working folk,
people from the capitalist countries who visit us will say:
So this is communism; so this is the Soviet system. What
simpletons we have been, not to have realized it before.
This is exactly what the working people need. (Applause.)

Allow me, dear comrades, on behalf of our delegation,
on behalf of the whole Soviet people, to express deep and

345

heartfelt gratitude to the Central Committee of the Hun-
garian Socialist Workers' Party and its First Secretary,
Comrade Kadar, to the Presidium of the Hungarian Peo-
ple's Republic and its President, Comrade Dobi, to the Gov-
ernment of People's Hungary and its Chairman, Comrade
Munnich, to all the working people of Hungary for the
hospitable and hearty reception accorded the representa-
tives of the Soviet people. Let us wish the industrious and
talented Hungarian people further success in building
socialism. {Stormy applause.)

May Hungarian-Soviet friendship flourish and grow
stronger! {Stormy applause.)

Long live the unity and solidarity of the peoples in the
countries of the socialist camp! (Stormy applause.)

Long live world peace! {Stormy applause. All rise. Long
ovation.)

SPEECH

AT EMBASSY RECEPTION

OF POLISH PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC ON OCCASION

OF 13th ANNIVERSARY

OF SOVIET-POLISH TREATY OF FRIENDSHIP,

MUTUAL ASSISTANCE AND POST-WAR CO-OPERATION

April 21, 1958

Dear Comrades and Friends,

We rejoice in celebrating this day. It is particularly pleas-
ant for both of us because 13 years ago, on April 21, 1945,
a Treaty of Friendship, Mutual Assistance and Post-war
Co-operation between the Soviet Union and the Polish
People's Republic was signed. Thirteen years have passed,
and they have been fruitful years.

There have been various turns in the history of relations
between Poland and our country. But let us reiterate that
the Polish people are not responsible for the actions of
their kings and the Pilsudskis, and our people are not re-
sponsible for what the tsars did. (Applause.)

Relations between the Polish People's Republic and the
Soviet Union are being built on a new, socialist founda-
tion. In October 1917, when the working class of our coun-
try triumphed and the workers took power into their own
hands, our Party, led by the great Lenin, proclaimed a
policy of peace and international friendship. And we have
undeviatingly followed this policy.

After the defeat of Nazi Germany, when the Polish peo-
ple became true masters of their country instead of the
handful of capitalists and landed gentry who had ruled
Poland in their name, they initiated their own policy which
conformed to their vital interests. The policy of the Gov-

347

ernment of the Polish People's Republic and the policy of
the Government of the Soviet Union are directed towards
one goal, because our countries are advancing along the
road of socialist development and because friendship be-
tween the peoples of our two countries is one of the most
important prerequisites for our common success in the
struggle for the achievement of our lofty aims.

The Polish people produced an outstanding revolution-
ary like Felix Dzerzhinsky, who was a fiery fighter for the
cause of the working people, a remarkable person and
friend of our great Lenin. It is not by accident that after
the victory of the October Socialist Revolution Lenin pro-
posed that Dzerzhinsky be appointed Chairman of the Ex-
traordinary Commission. Great trust was placed in this
son of the Polish people. As a loyal son of his class, and
of our Communist Party, Dzerzhinsky served to his last
breath the proletarian revolution, the cause of the work-
ing class and the cause of the toiling peasantry. (Ap-
plause.)

Today the President of the Presidium of the U.S.S.R.
Supreme Soviet, Voroshilov, and other comrades are visit-
ing the Polish People's Republic. Kliment Yefremovich is
old in years, but young in spirit. He telephoned me from
Poland and described the stirring welcome given him by
the Polish working people. Comrade Voroshilov said that
the Polish people gave them such a rousing reception
that they were at a loss to find words to describe their
emotions. They have been to Nowa Huta, Cracow and
other cities, have met miners, foundrymen, peasants and
Polish intellectuals. "I am simply amazed," Kliment Yefre-
movich says, "people lined the roads in pouring rain for
scores of kilometres to welcome our delegation."

When the Soviet delegation left for the Polish People's
Republic, we did not doubt that it would be accorded a
hearty welcome. And we were not mistaken. The Polish
people are expressing their sentiments of fraternal friend-
ship for the Soviet people. This is very gratifying.

348

We must continue to do everything to consolidate the
friendship between our two peoples not only because we
have a common frontier. We, as all the peoples of the so-
cialist states, have common aims and common interests.
We cannot forget that we had a common enemy who at-
tacked Poland, and then, through Polish territory, the So-
viet Union.

It is undesirable to invoke "the devil" on such a great
day as this. But we must clearly realize the state of af-
fairs and remember that he may appear in different forms.

We must do everything possible to strengthen the friend-
ship between the peoples of all the socialist countries. I
subscribe to the words spoken here by Comrade Gede. Be-
ing the host, he has spoken first. I shall not repeat what
he has already said and shall simply concur in what he
said.

The key thing is that we hold the common aim of build-
ing socialism and communism. Our friendship is beneficial
because it does not threaten anyone. It pursues the noble
purpose of safeguarding world peace. Is there anyone who
does not desire this? Perhaps a handful of people who are
interested in obtaining profits from the arms race. Those
people do want war. All those who live by their work want
peace and not war. Peace and socialism are inseparable.
This applies to all the socialist countries. If a country is so-
cialist, it means that it is peaceful.

The socialist countries do not need war. They need peace
to advance their economy, to raise the living standards of
the working people. We stand for peaceful co-existence,
for peaceful competition between the two systems — social-
ist and capitalist. And we are convinced that our system
will triumph, just as we are sure that the sun will rise,
that it will ascend up into the sky again tomorrow to illu-
minate our planet.

We must say that things are going very well in our
country. But we Bolsheviks are avid people. We are not
satisfied with what we have achieved today. We want the

349

morrow to be better than today. But what the Soviet peo-
ple have achieved yesterday, we have no objection to con-
tinuing further.

We have planned to increase our industrial production
by 7.6 per cent in 1958, and have actually achieved an in-
crement of 11 per cent in the first quarter of this year. Dur-
ing the past three months we have increased retail sales
of meat and meat products by 53,000 tons, butter by
16,000 tons, and milk and dairy products by 569,000 tons
against the first quarter of last year. Not a bad increase!
We are extremely pleased over this because it all makes
for higher living standards for the people.

Poland is also striding forward. All the socialist coun-
tries are making progress.

Proletarian internationalism does not consist in Platon-
ic friendship and mutual sympathy. We cannot imagine
one socialist country making great economic progress,
while the other socialist states mark time. The crux and
characteristic feature of friendship between the socialist
states is that they help one another. If one socialist coun-
try makes great progress, it considers that its fraternal
duty is to help the other socialist states in their develop-
ment.

All the socialist countries will achieve communism. This
means that socialist states must share their experience,
their knowledge and must help one another. Only on this
basis can we advance successfully, only on this basis can
friendship be unselfish and fraternal.

Socialist countries by their very nature cannot live by
exploiting other countries. Are we guided by a desire to
derive profit or material advantage when we, as a stronger
socialist state, render assistance, grant credit, or supply
equipment to other countries? Of course not. Our policy is
not geared to deriving profits from helping other countries.
Such a policy is characteristic of monopoly capital, the
capitalist countries, and not the countries of socialism. By
rendering fraternal assistance to the socialist states the

350

Soviet Union is advancing together with them to the great
goal of communism.

Permit me to propose a toast of friendship between the
socialist states, to the consolidation of the mighty camp
of socialism, to a greater role of the working class in the
struggle for the victory of socialism!

To the health of the fraternal Polish people, to the Pol-
ish United Workers' Party and the Government of the Pol-
ish People's Republic! To the health of the Ambassador
of the Polish People's Republic, Comrade Gede, and his
wife! To the health of the First Secretary of the Central
Committee of the Polish United Workers' Party, Comrade
Wladyslaw Gomulka! (Applause.)

SPEECH

AT LUNCHEON IN HONOUR

OF GAMAL ABDEL NASSER

PRESIDENT OF UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC

April 30, 1958

Mr. President,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Dear Friends,

Allow me to express our feelings of friendship to you,
Mr. President, and the statesmen of the United Arab Re-
public who are accompanying you on your good will and
friendship visit to the Soviet Union. We are very pleased
that you have come to the Soviet Union. We are also hap-
py that your visit to the Soviet Union has coincided with
the May Day celebrations.

The discussions we have had during our meetings have
again demonstrated a friendly atmosphere and mutual un-
derstanding in assessing current international problems,
and especially in appraising questions relating to the
struggle for peace, for the further development and con-
solidation of friendship between our countries.

Mr. President, you have participated in the Bandung
Conference and taken part in drafting its decisions. If all
states had been guided by the principles underlying the
decisions of the Bandung Conference, the peace of the
world would have been ensured. The Soviet Union has wel-
comed the Bandung Conference decisions; it also supports
the decisions of the Conference of Afro-Asian Countries re-
cently held in Cairo.

352

Our disinterested foreign policy — a policy based on prin-
ciple— should be clear to you. It is not a contemplative,
but an active policy of struggle against evil forces — the
aggressive,, monopolistic and colonialist forces which have
not renounced their hopes of perpetuating colonial slavery,
of continuing to plunder and exploit the peoples of Asia
and Africa.

We want peace throughout the world. We desire friend-
ship with all nations; we want disarmament; we want an
end to the policy of the cold war.

You know that the Soviet Union has unilaterally halted
nuclear weapons tests — an act prompted by our country's
sincere desire to make a beginning in normalizing the in-
ternational situation and achieving a genuine solution to
the disarmament problem.

Unfortunately the Western Powers possessing nuclear
weapons refuse to follow our example, and now there has
come the news that Britain has exploded a hydrogen
bomb. But by so doing, Britain has exploded not only a
hydrogen bomb— above all she has exploded the faith and
hopes of millions of people who have been expecting the
ruling circles of Britain and the United States to display
sound judgement, to follow the example of the Soviet
Union, and thus create the prerequisites for ending the
cold war and ensuring world peace. The Western Powers
are blasting the hopes of people who have expected that
during the conference of Heads of Government the means
would be found to settle outstanding issues peacefully,
without war.

People in all countries will correctly appreciate the high-
minded act of the Soviet Government in unilaterally halt-
ing nuclear weapons tests and will condemn the reckless
act of the ruling circles of Britain who have sanctioned
the explosion of the hydrogen bomb. And it will be espe-
cially noted that it was Britain which assumed this un-
seemly role. By exploding the bomb she has signalled that
the United States, too, will follow her example.

353

The whole world will draw the appropriate conclusions
from this circumstance. The Soviet Union is not to be in-
timidated by such explosions. Our policy remains un-
changed and we shall work to reduce international tension,
to end the cold war and solve the disarmament problem. But
we are duty-bound to be vigilant and not relax our efforts
in strengthening our state, so that the Soviet Union should
not be caught unawares by aggressors and should be able
to give a fitting rebuff to aggressors if they try to push a
cold war beyond the brink and convert it into a "hot war."

The President of the United States, in his speeches, has
often declared that in his activities he has been guided sole-
ly by the interests of safeguarding peace, that the United
States has been pursuing only peaceful aims. Such decla-
rations scarcely tally with the deeds. The deeds of the rul-
ing circles of the United States contradict these state-
ments. The explosion of a nuclear weapon by the British
has unquestionably been co-ordinated with the United
States. The latter is also preparing tests and will evidently
carry out explosions of nuclear weapons.

The people judge the policy of political leaders, not by
what they say, but by what they do. The deeds and actions
of the statesmen of the United States and Britain show up
the activities of the American and British governments in
a very unattractive light.

We have already drawn the attention of all countries to
the provocative flights by American aircraft, loaded with
hydrogen weapons, towards the Soviet frontiers. It is clear
to everyone that such provocative and dangerous actions
in no way correspond with the peaceable statements of the
United States Government.

The nuclear explosion carried out by Britain is calculat-
ed to charge the cold war atmosphere, to intimidate the
faint-hearted. But gone are the times when the British lion
roared and everything quaked. Now it can frighten no one.
We should not like to recall the failure of the adventurist
policy of Britain which, together with France and Israel,

354

committed aggression against Egypt in 1956. But they com-
pel us to bring this matter up because the British authori-
ties have carried out the explosion in order to bring pres-
sure to bear on us. We must tell these gentlemen, how-
ever, that they will be disappointed. It does not produce
upon us the impression that they expected.

The leading statesmen of the United States and Britain
say that they must continue explosions of nuclear weapons
because the Soviet Union recently carried out a series of
nuclear tests and only afterwards announced the cessation
of tests. Yet it is a fact that the United States has carried
out considerably more explosions of nuclear weapons than
the Soviet Union. If one judges by the number of explo-
sions, then we, having halted tests, remain at a disadvan-
tage. Nevertheless, we have resolved on this course and
have urged the countries possessing nuclear weapons to
follow our example. We were prepared to perpetuate this
disadvantageous position of ours. That did not worry us,
however. We believed that our decision would be the initial
step towards reaching agreement on disarmament in order
to exclude war as a means of settling disputed questions.
Now the Americans, as the American press puts it, are
preparing a show. But it is a disgraceful show. They intend
to carry out fresh explosions of nuclear weapons and to
invite to these tests representatives of other states
so that they may see how American monopolists are
developing weapons for the mass annihilation of human
beings.

The Soviet Government has not yet officially determined
its attitude with regard to this show. But I think it will
hardly agree to send its representatives there, since that
would constitute a form of moral support for those who
advocate stepping up the cold war and preparing aggres-
sion and support for their allegation that it is possible to
develop a "clean" bomb, which would be, so to speak, a
"noble" weapon for the vile deed of annihilating human
beings.

355

And the people who are preparing this lethal weapon
call themselves Christians, attend church and pray to God.
They call us atheists and describe us as people with whom
it is impossible to reach agreement and whose word can-
not be trusted. It is, nevertheless, precisely these atheists
who have been the first to set the example of a noble deed
and to unilaterally end tests of the most deadly weapon
— the nuclear weapon.

The Soviet Union's peace policy in foreign affairs is clear
and understandable to the peoples. They see that the So-
viet Government is resolutely and consistently pursuing a
policy of peaceful co-existence. At the same time, the peo-
ples see that the ruling circles of the imperialist Powers.
who stubbornly cling to the positions of cold war and ia
continued arms race, do not want to ease international
tension and establish greater confidence between states.

We sincerely rejoice that relations between the Soviet
Union and the United Arab Republic are not in the least
clouded. We have only one desire: the strengthening of the
positions gained by the Arab peoples, and above all the
United Arab Republic. In this you are backed not only by
the Soviet Union, but by all progressive mankind. The
peoples of the socialist countries applauded when you were
selflessly striving, and they applaud when you now strive
so selflessly for your independence, for reinforcing your
national economy, for raising the standard of living of your
peoples.

Grossly distorting our peace policy, the imperialist cir-
cles scream about the Soviet Union's "special'' interest in
this area. We indignantly deny these utterly false asser-
tions. In our disinterested aid to the Middle Eastern coun-
tries we have never pursued any selfish aims. The con-
cepts and methods of the colonialists, who believe that if
they do not oppress this or that nation, others must do so,
are alien to the Soviet socialist state. We Communists
maintain that no one may impose his will on the people.
The people themselves are the masters of their land, and

356

only they can and must establish the way of life they pre-
fer to have in their countries.

The imperialists, who are accustomed to oppressing the
peoples they have subjugated, at one time established the
disgraceful system of colonialism. They are so used to it
that they regard the system of colonial oppression as a
just and lawful system. We saw this particularly clearly
in April 1956, when we visited Britain and had talks with
Anthony Eden, Selwyn Lloyd and other statesmen. In one
of our talks Sir Anthony Eden bluntly said that if the
Arab nations did not supply oil to Britain, then Britain
would be ready to go to war.

"We beg your pardon," we said then to the British
statesmen, "but the sources of oil belong to the Middle East-
ern peoples, and we presume that no one has the right to
deprive these peoples of the wealth that belongs to
them." It would be much more reasonable, we advised, not
to try and seize this wealth by force, but to conduct mu-
tually beneficial trade with those to whom those sources of
oil belong. The Arab states would, of course, not sell their
oil to those who did not offer a good price for it. The
policy of colonial oppression and plunder was now un-
thinkable; it was doomed to failure.

The British statesmen then told us that the correlation
of forces in that area was not in favour of the Arabs and
that Israel could defeat the Arab states. We retorted by
saying that those who thought so were cherishing vain
hopes. The population of Israel amounted to approximate-
ly one and a half million, whereas the population of the
Arab states was over 70 million. We said that if Israel
were to unleash a war against the Arabs, the Arabs
would, in our opinion, start a holy war against the
invaders. And such a war would inevitably end in the
defeat of the aggressors. All progressive mankind would be
on the side of the Arab people. In such a case, moral sup-
port for the Arab people might entail material support

357

and also the participation of volunteers in the Arab struggle
against the invaders.

We advised the British statesmen not to start a war
against the Arabs, but they did not heed our counsel,
launched aggression against Egypt and suffered a dis-
graceful failure.

We should like the colonialists to draw the correct con-
clusion from this and to refrain from using arms to annex
foreign territories and subject other peoples to their policy.
We want peace throughout the world. Second to Western
Europe, where concentrations of large forces are facing
each other, the Middle East is one of the most inflammable
spots.

The Soviet Government has proposed that a summit con-
ference be held in order jointly to find ways for solving
urgent international problems. But the summit meeting
and talks must be conducted with due regard for the in-
terests of all countries, on the only acceptable principle of
non-interference in the affairs of other states. We must reach
mutual agreement, not at the expense of any other countries.
Highly developed countries must render aid to backward
states without attaching any political, military or econom-
ic strings to it. We must develop mutually beneficial trade
so that the Arab lands, for instance, which are rich in
oil and cotton, can sell their products at a suitable price
to any country.

The foreign policy of the Soviet Union and all the social-
ist countries is being recognized by an ever-increasing
number of states as a policy of peace and disinterested-
ness. We share— to the extent permitted by our material
resources— with the countries which still have an underde-
veloped economy. We render assistance to other states and
shall continue to do so. Our future aid will obviously grow
concomitantly with the expansion of our economy.

My speech has proved to be rather long, but I wished
to elucidate certain questions once again so that we may
be better understood.

358

I drink to the health of our dear guest — the President
of the United Arab Republic, Gamal Abdel Nasser, to the
national hero who boldly raised the banner of struggle
against the colonialists, who waged and is waging a strug-
gle for the independence of his republic and the other
Arab peoples which have still not thrown off the colonial-
ist yoke!

Our sympathy, dear friends, is on your side, on the side
of the peoples waging a struggle for their freedom and in-
dependence. I believe that you have the sympathy, not only
of the Soviet people, but of the peoples of all the socialist
countries as well! This is already about 1,000 million peo-
ple. In the capitalist countries as well progressive-minded
people sympathize with your noble and just struggle.

To your health! To your success!

REPLIES

TO QUESTIONS PUT BY

GREEK NEWSPAPER PUBLISHER

Ch. LAMBRAKIS

Mr. Christos Lambrakis, the publisher of a number of
Greek newspapers, including Vima, Nea and Tachydromos,
requested N. S. Khrushchov, Chairman of the Council of
Ministers of the U.S.S.R., to answer a number of ques-
tions.

N. S. Khrushchov's replies to these questions are given
below.

Question: What problems in your opinion could be solved
by a summit conference in order to create appropriate con-
ditions for peaceful co-existence?

Answer: The main problem in international politics is to
live without war, to co-operate peacefully irrespective of
differing social systems and ideologies in the various
countries. In short, the point in question is to avoid a new
war, the catastrophic consequences of which are beyond
human imagination.

The Soviet Union is known to have advanced a proposal
for holding a summit conference. This conference could
discuss problems whose solution is the basis for the grad-
ual ending of the cold war and an improved internation-
al climate in general.

The Soviet Government believes that discussion of such
questions as the immediate cessation of atomic and hyd-
rogen weapons tests, the creation of an atom-free zone in

360

Central Europe, the conclusion of a non-aggression agree-
ment between the NATO and Warsaw Treaty states, the
reduction of foreign troops on the territory of Germany
and other European states, and the conclusion of an agree-
ment on the prevention of a surprise attack, the relaxa-
tion of tension in the Middle East and measures to extend
international trade and end war propaganda, as well as
other urgent questions would be conducive to achieving
favourable results.

If all possible participants in this conference fully
realize their supreme responsibility for the destinies of the
world and display good will, it will be possible to arrive at
positive decisions. The peoples will thus be delivered from
the fear of a new war and their faith and hope in the
possibility of establishing a lasting peace will be strength-
ened.

Question: What in your opinion are the ways to curb
and end the cold war and how will peaceful co-existence
between East and West be achieved?

Answer: The cold war is conducted by those Western
circles that are accustomed to living according to out-
moded conceptions. They do not comprehend new develop-
ments and do not wish to reckon with them. But that
which is new in life never asks for permission to be or not
to be. It makes its appearance, develops and gains strength.
The enemies of the new— and we mean socialism when we
say the new— hope to be able to stem the growth and devel-
opment of new social formations, new relations among the
peoples. With this in mind they have invented the cold
war and the "positions of strength" policy. However, all
now see that socialism is a sound system and one that is
triumphing, a system which is ridding the peoples of the
wrongs and misfortunes of the past. The best way out is
to end the cold war and embark, in deeds, and not merely
in words, on the road of peaceful co-existence.

On this basis and provided the desire is mutual, con-
crete steps could be found for bringing the East and the

361

West closer together, establishing and strengthening mu-
tual confidence and extending international co-operation
in all spheres.

The cold war was conceived in the West and, consequent-
ly, it is necessary for only one side to abandon it for it
to be eliminated. The socialist states are opponents of
the cold war. They have always been for international
friendship, for mutual respect and non-intervention in
each other's domestic affairs. The entire international sit-
uation could easily be normalized on this basis, provided
it is observed by the parties concerned.

As for the Soviet Union, we have taken steps and are
continuing our efforts to secure a relaxation of interna-
tional tension and an end to the cold war. These steps
are well known to everyone. Only recently the Supreme
Soviet of the U.S.S.R. adopted a decision unilaterally to
end atomic and hydrogen weapons tests. The Soviet
Union hopes that its example will eventually be followed
by the other Powers possessing nuclear weapons— the
United States and Britain.

Question: Do you have hopes that a way will be found
to gradual universal disarmament? Is it possible to estab-
lish effective control in the event of it being decided to
ban the use of nuclear weapons universally?

Answer: If we were to enumerate all the Soviet pro-
posals on disarmament, this enumeration would, in effect,
be an indictment of the Western Powers, which, each
time the Soviet Union has made a proposal meeting the
Western position half-way, have sought various pretexts
for not accepting it.

The Soviet Union is ready at any time to sign an agree-
ment on banning atomic and hydrogen weapons and on
disarmament. We are ready to conclude a comprehensive
agreement and agreements on individual aspects of the
disarmament problem. Yet neither of these two ap-
proaches suits the Western Powers. Even their own propos-
es

als do not suit them as soon as the Soviet Union agrees
to them.

The Soviet Union is known to have proposed at one
time the complete banning of atomic and hydrogen weap-
ons, an end to their manufacture, their removal from
national armaments and the destruction of all stockpiles
of these weapons. Moreover, the Soviet Union's proposal
provided for the implementation of these measures under
corresponding effective and reasonable controls. However,
this proposal did not meet with support from the Western
Powers.

We have repeatedly proposed to the Western Powers
that unilateral disarmament measures be taken, but they
have refused to do this as well. Now we have offered
them another opportunity to take a real step towards
reaching a disarmament agreement and ensuring inter-
national security: to unilaterally end the tests of atomic
and hydrogen weapons. The Soviet Union is known to
have already taken this step. But we have run up against
a blank wall again. The two other Powers possessing
nuclear weapons— the United States and Britain— remain
stubbornly opposed to this. Nevertheless, we shall contin-
ue to be patient and persistent in our efforts to solve the
disarmament problem and to achieve a ban on nuclear
weapons. We believe that sooner or later the Western
Powers will be compelled to agree to a solution of the
disarmament problem because all the peoples want this
and because it is the only way to save the world from
the horrors of a new war.

Question: The Greek people are extremely satisfied with
the Soviet Union's attitude on the Cyprus issue and would
like to regard this not only as a reflection of the Soviet
Union's struggle against colonialism, but also as an
action clearly determined by the recognition of the fact
that most of the population of Cyprus are of Greek origin.
Does this attitude remain unchanged?

Answer: The Soviet Union has stood, and stands now,

363

for a solution of the Cyprus problem corresponding to the
interests of the Cyprus population and the consolidation
of peace in this area. We believe that every nation has the
right to determine its future, and the sooner the vestiges
of the disgraceful colonialist system disappear the better
it will be for the peoples, for world peace. The Soviet
people sympathize with and respect the desire of the Cy-
priots to uphold their legitimate rights and get rid of
foreign oppression.

The Soviet delegation in the United Nations has ac-
tively supported the just demand of the Cypriots and from
the rostrum of the United Nations has exposed the in-
trigues of the colonialists who strive to perpetuate the colo-
nialist system on the island through various plans for
"settling" the Cyprus problem by imposing on its popu-
lation a concocted "constitution," dividing Cyprus and
drawing the island into the NATO system and building
war bases there, etc.

These plans have nothing in common with the true de-
sires of the Cypriots, who fully realize that their imple-
mentation could bring them nothing but new hardships.
It is absolutely clear that because of the position taken
by Greece's "allies" in the North Atlantic bloc the Cyprus
question has not yet been solved as demanded by the
Cypriots.

We believe that the United Nations, if it does not want
to be tied to the apron-strings of the colonialists, should
finally throw its weight in favour of solving the Cyprus
problem along lines that are truly democratic and just.

Question: Do you think that the commitments assumed
earlier by Greece restrict and hamper her freedom in
deciding the question of setting up atomic bases on her
territory?

Answer: Here you obviously have in view the commit-
ments undertaken by Greece when joining the military
North Atlantic grouping.

The Soviet Union's position with regard to this bloc is

364

well known. We have not concealed, nor do we now con-
ceal, our opposition to this aggressive military grouping,
which is directed against the peace-loving states. Mem-
bership in this organization tethers Greece to a one-sided
policy which has neither brought her any advantages in
the past nor promises any bright prospects for the future.
Due to the fact that Greece is a member of an aggressive
military grouping, she may, against her will and desire,
become involved in a dangerous war gamble started by
any other member of this bloc, by the United States or
Turkey, for instance.

At present NATO leaders have evolved plans for setting
up American atomic and rocket bases on Greek soil. Broad
sections of the Greek population are known to be alarmed
and disturbed by this circumstance. They are actively
coming out against these schemes because their imple-
mentation would endanger the future of the Greek people.
And this is understandable: the presence of atomic bases
on Greek soil could open the country, in the event of a
military conflict, to a retaliatory atomic blow with all the
attendant tragic consequences.

In spite of their commitments to the North Atlantic
bloc, some members of this organization reject the plans
for deploying atomic and rocket weapons on their terri-
tory. It is not surprising that many Greeks are also propo-
sing that their country should follow this sensible road.

Question: Do you consider the existing economic rela-
tions between Greece and the Soviet Union satisfactory?
There is a feeling in our country that the vast Soviet
market could consume a much greater proportion of Greek
products, particularly citrus fruits, whose overproduction
has lately been exerting a certain amount of pressure on
the Greek economy. Moreover, we are aware that the
Soviet Union has almost a centuries-old tradition of im-
porting Greek goods. At present trade between our two
countries is conducted on the basis of goods exchange.

365

Proceeding from this, what goods would the Soviet Union
prefer to sell on the Greek market?

Answer: From 1953 on, when a trade and payments
agreement was concluded, to this day commercial rela-
tions between the Soviet Union and Greece can be regard-
ed as absolutely satisfactory. Trade turnover between
the U.S.S.R. and Greece has grown nearly sevenfold dur-
ing this period. Moreover, it is worth noting that the
development of commercial relations between the Soviet
Union and Greece has in no way hampered Greek trade
with other countries. The Soviet Union is a major buyer
of such traditional Greek exports as tobacco and citrus
and dried fruits, as well as other agricultural products.
At the same time the Soviet Union supplies a number
of goods of importance for the Greek economy: oil prod-
ucts, timber, machines and equipment. Trade relations
between the U.S.S.R. and Greece are based on equality in
reciprocal deliveries, and it is absolutely natural that abid-
ance by this principle will be conducive to the further
development of trade between the two countries and will
ensure Greece a reliable market for sales.

In spite of the level of trade attained between the
U.S.S.R. and Greece, possibilities for the further develop-
ment of trade between our two countries are far from ex-
hausted. As a highly developed industrial country and a
major exporter of goods to many countries, the Soviet
Union could considerably increase its deliveries of goods
needed by Greece, including machines and equipment, in
exchange for Greek agricultural products. The Soviet
Union is also ready to consider other forms of economic
co-operation with Greece, which could promote the coun-
try's industrialization and the development of her inde-
pendent economy, if the Greek Government displays cor-
responding interest.

Question: To be absolutely frank, I shall say forth-
rightly that among the country's political leaders and,
consequently, among their followers who constitute the

366

broad masses of the people, apart from the EDA Party,
there is widespread mistrust regarding the Soviet Union's
ultimate aims with respect to Greece. This mistrust is
based on recent events and, in particular, the civil war
which followed the liberation of Greece. In their opinion
the civil war was actively supported by the Soviet Union
and the countries which are its friends. What can you
say in order to change this view?

Answer: First of all I wish to say that I do not agree
with your assertion regarding the mistrust which broad
sections of the Greek population allegedly have towards
the Soviet Union's intentions with respect to their coun-
try. Various Soviet delegations which have visited Greece
in the past few years have been accorded a most cor-
dial, warm and friendly welcome by representatives of
the Greek public. Besides, there has not been a single
case in which the question of any mistrust for the Soviet
Union's intentions arose. Of course, the Greeks are a hos-
pitable nation. But if any deep-rooted mistrust really
existed between our two peoples, no hospitality could
conceal it and this mistrust would be bound to find ex-
pression in one form or another.

Perhaps it would be more correct to assume that the
story about "mistrust" is being intentionally exaggerated
by those who, for their own selfish interests, would like
our two countries to become embroiled in dispute and
would like to hamper the development of the traditional
friendly relations between the peoples of the U.S.S.R. and
Greece.

The Soviet Union has repeatedly declared, and proved
in practice, that it bases its relations with all countries,
including Greece, on the principles of peaceful co-exist-
ence and non-interference in the internal affairs of other
countries. The Soviet people have no self-seeking inten-
tions with respect to the Greek people, with whom they
have ties of friendship stemming from the distant past.
This friendship has been sealed by the blood of the finest

367

sons and daughters of Greece and the Soviet Union,
which was shed in the struggle against the sworn enemy
of mankind — German fascism.

In recent times the German militarists, who have
brought so much suffering to our peoples, are again rear-
ing their heads, arming themselves with all types of
modern destructive weapons, including atom and hydro-
gen bombs. That is why we Soviet people believe that the
friendship of the Greek and Soviet peoples, as well as
other peace-loving nations, is not simply a matter of his-
tory, but an effective factor which can and must play an
important part in the present-day international situation.

It is no secret that for some time after the Second
World War the cold war left a sinister imprint on rela-
tions between the U.S.S.R. and Greece. But is the Soviet
Union to blame for that? Who is brazen enough to assert
that the events which took place in Greece then were en-
gineered by the Soviet Union? Is it not a fact that the
Soviet Union has consistently adhered, and continues to
adhere, to the concept that any nation, including the
Greek people, can regulate its own internal affairs with-
out foreign supervision?

We are deeply convinced that the socialist system of-
fers unquestionable advantages over the capitalist system,
with its crises, mass unemployment, enrichment of a
handful of people and ruin for the bro>ad masses of
the people. But we are also convinced that there would
be nothing more harmful than an attempt to foist any
system upon peoples. It is up to the peoples themselves,
including the Greek people, to decide which governmental
structure and which regime they most prefer.

As is known, relations between the U.S.S.R. and Greece
were normalized in 1953 on the initiative of the Soviet
Union. Is this not the best proof of the Soviet Union's
sincere desire to develop friendly relations with Greece?
Almost five years have passed since then. Trade has in-
creased considerably between our two countries during

368

this period, cultural ties have been expanded and mu-
tual contacts strengthened. However, there are still great
untapped opportunities for developing all-round relations
between the U.S.S.R. and Greece. The Soviet Union stands
for the utilization of these opportunities to the utmost, for
the broad development of cultural, scientific, sports and
other contacts on a regular and durable basis. This will
help us to learn still more about one another, to wipe out
for ever any shadow of mutual "distrust."

Question: What, in your opinion, should be the role of
Greece in the Mediterranean and the Balkans?

Answer: Greece occupies an important position in the
Balkans and in the Mediterranean basin. This imposes
great responsibilities on her. Further relations in this
part of the globe depend largely on the position which
Greece takes with regard to the basic problems of
the situation in the Balkans and the Mediterranean area.

It should be noted that definite progress has been made
recently in developing traditional co-operation between
the countries of the Balkan peninsula. Diplomatic rela-
tions have been restored between Greece, on the one hand,
and Bulgaria and Rumania on the other. Some advances
have been made towards normalizing Greco-Albanian rela-
tions. The Rumanian Government's initiative in convening
a conference of the Heads of Government of the Balkan
states to discuss mutual economic and cultural co-opera-
tion and the establishment of friendly political relations
has called forth a favourable response from the Balkan
peoples, because this step was dictated by life itself. Al-
though it is known that the Greek Government has not
supported the Rumanian Government's proposal, it goes
without saying that the consolidation and development of
all-round friendly relations between the Balkan peoples
and the transformation of this part of Europe into a gen-
uine "zone of peace" would undoubtedly be of benefit
to the peoples both of Greece and of the other Balkan
states. Greece can and must play an important part in

369

this noble cause. Naturally, peaceful co-operation be-
tween the Balkan peoples is incompatible with any plans
to turn Balkan territory into a possible area of atomic
and rocket war.

Greece also plays an important role in the Eastern Medi-
terranean, an area which some Western Powers are seeking
to turn into a seat of unrest and conflict. It is enough to
recall the dangerous consequences which the British,
French and Israeli aggression against Egypt— which is
upholding her national independence and freedom-
might have had for the cause of peace if this aggression
had not been rebuffed in good time by all the peace-loving
peoples.

The happiness and prosperity of the Mediterranean coun-
tries should be sought in mutual co-operation without any
external pressure, and not in forming various war blocs
and launching military ventures. It is common knowledge
that good relations exist between Greece and the countries
of the Arab East adjoining the Mediterranean Sea. The
further development and consolidation of these relations
and a firm and consistent stand by Greece on questions
related to the peaceful co-operation of the Mediterranean
countries with all nations will help to raise Greece's in-
ternational prestige and will be a valuable contribution
to establishing an atmosphere of tranquility and friend-
ship in this area.

Respectfully yours,

N. KHRUSHCHOV

Pravda, May 4, 1958

SPEECH

AT RECEPTION AT EMBASSY

OF THE UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC IN HONOUR

OF GAMAL ABDEL NASSER, PRESIDENT OF U.A.R.

May 14, 1958

Dear Mr. President,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Friends and Comrades,

To begin with, allow me to express our thanks for the
kind words and wishes addressed here to the Soviet Union
and the peoples of our country.

We are very happy that the President of the United
Arab Republic, Mr. Gamal Abdel Nasser, and the states-
men who accompany him, have come to visit our country.
We have long waited for this friendly visit, but the
armed aggression against Egypt in the autumn of 1956
had prevented Mr. Nasser's trip, which had long been
agreed upon.

We have done everything we could to make the stay of
the President and his colleagues pleasant and, above all,
useful.

Your tour of the Soviet Union has not been a long one.
You have seen no more than a bit of our country. But
wherever you did go, you had a chance to see the cordial
sentiments that the Soviet people have for the people of
the United Arab Republic, who are in the front ranks of
the fighters against colonialism and imperialism.

Our enemies spread many false stories about the policy
of the Soviet Union. Our country's policy of peace is con-
vincingly illustrated by the facts, by life itself.

371

We do not urge our system or our views on anyone. We
want every nation to arrange its life as it wants. And
statesmen who come to us on good will visits may ob-
serve all the aspects of our country's life. On seeing and
appreciating the merits of one phenomenon or another,
our visitors may, of course, profit by our experience. But
can this be interpreted as urging?

Visitors may find many useful things both in our agri-
cultural development and in our industry, and in the
sphere of scientific, technical and cultural development.
Hence, there are many things of interest to our visitors,
regardless of their own country's social system. They can
adopt many useful things from us. And we adopt some of
the constructive experience and achievements from the
non-socialist countries. There is much that is useful for
a mutual exchange of experience in both the socialist and
the non-socialist countries and for the better development
of economy and culture in each of these countries. And
there is nothing unusual about that.

We are gratified that Mr. President has visited Uzbekis-
tan, Azerbaijan, the Georgian Republic and the Ukraine, and
that he has acquainted himself with the life and culture
of the Soviet people, that he has visited industries and
collective farms, and that he has seen what a free nation
which has taken its destiny into its own hands can achieve.
And all this has been accomplished in the short period
that 40 years is in history.

We are gratified that you have visited such of our cities
as Moscow, Kiev, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Tashkent, Baku,
Zaporozhye, Sochi and Sukhumi, and have gained an idea
of what Soviet people have achieved in developing their
economy, science and culture. And we regret very much
that your stay here, and our friendly meetings and talks
which have yielded much to both sides for better mutual
understanding, are coming to an end. But our personal
acquaintance will, we hope, be very useful for the further
development of friendly relations between our countries.

372

A good beginning has been made in establishing con-
tacts between the statesmen of our countries, and we
hope that this will serve our common cause, that it will
contribute to closer ties between our countries and to more
frequent visits and contacts between the statesmen of
our countries.

The Soviet people received you happily and with an
open heart, Mr. President, the national hero of the Arab
people who rose boldly against colonial oppression, un-
daunted by the fact that Egypt was, and still is, opposed
by fairly large colonialist forces. The imperialists are
bending every effort to crush the resistance of the United
Arab Republic, to subject it again to the will of foreign
monopolies, to deprive it of its political independence.

When troubled times came for your republic and the
colonialists attacked you, we said in no uncertain fashion
that we side with you against the colonialists. We said
this in a way fitting for a freedom-loving and independ-
ent state which conducts its policy with due regard not
only for its own interests, but the interests of universal
peace, the interests of the oppressed peoples that have
raised the banner of struggle for liberation.

We have always been, and will remain, on the side of
those who fight for their independence and freedom. We
sympathize with the struggle of the Arabs of Algeria, we
sympathize with Yemen, and Oman, we sympathize
with all the countries that fight against the colonialists
for their independence.

We are well aware that some do not like our policy. It
is to the distaste of those countries, too, with which we
should also like to improve our relations. But we do not
want to improve our relations with them at the price of
ignoring the actions they perform with the aim of en-
slaving other peoples. That would be not only a deal
against the latter but a compromise with our conscience-
something we have never been prepared to countenance,
and will never countenance. We are a socialist country

373

whose people is itself fighting for a better future. Such a
country can never agree to a deal with anyone at
the expense of another country, another people.

We have never concealed our sympathies. Nor do we do
so now. I think, Mr. President, that you have already con-
vinced yourself of our disinterested approach, of our
devotion to the struggle of the peoples for their libera-
tion and independence. It is our sincere wish that these
countries should develop their national economy, their
culture, and profit by the latest achievements of science
and technology.

Permit me to toast eternal Arab-Soviet friendship,
the prosperity of the United Arab Republic, the health
of the outstanding statesman of the Arab East,
President Gamal Abdel Nasser, the health of our dear
guests!

SPEECH

AT MEETING OF FRIENDSHIP

BETWEEN PEOPLES OF THE SOVIET UNION

AND THE UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC

May 15, 1958

Esteemed Mr. President Gamal Abdel Nasser,

Our Esteemed Guests Accompanying the President of
the United Arab Republic,

Dear Comrades,

We have gathered here today to express the feelings
of friendship which the peoples of the Soviet Union have
for the peoples of the United Arab Republic. Allow me
once again, from the bottom of my heart, to greet Mr.
Nasser, the President of the United Arab Republic, and
all our welcome guests accompanying the President.
(Stormy applause.)

It gives us pleasure to say that the relations between
our countries and our peoples are improving with every
year and developing in a spirit of sincere friendship and
co-operation.

The Soviet Union is an irreconcilable opponent of the
shameful system of colonialism and gives support to all
peoples who are fighting for their national liberation, for
the strengthening of their political independence. We
know with what difficulty the new is born. The old forces
not only do not want to recognize the new, but do every-
thing possible to nip it in the bud.

The Soviet state was born and grew stronger fighting
against the forces of the old world. The United Arab Re-

375

public, uniting two independent Arab states, Egypt and
Syria, countries with an ancient culture, was born and
is growing stronger in the struggle against the forces of
imperialism.

The Great October Socialist Revolution struck a power-
ful blow at the entire system of imperialism and colonial-
ism. The past 40 years have seen tremendous changes
throughout the world. The defeat of the aggressors in the
Second World War, the victory of the People's Liberation
Revolution in China, the formation of a whole group of
socialist states in Europe and Asia— all this dealt another
crushing blow at imperialism. One colonial empire after
another began to tumble down, and more and more in-
dependent states are emerging in the world.

When the Government headed by President Nasser took
office in Egypt and began to carry out a policy in the
interests of its country, the colonialists tried to block the
road and to impede the work of the Egyptian Govern-
ment. They staged conspiracies, hired assassins, and tried
to overthrow the Government. The imperialists did every-
thing possible to prevent the consolidation of the Egyp-
tian state. When the plots failed, they decided to restore
the colonial regime by force and launched a predatory
war against Egypt.

The war gamble against Egypt ended in disgrace-
ful failure for the colonial Powers and a remarkable
victory for the Egyptian people. We admire the heroic
struggle of the Arab people for their freedom and inde-
pendence and the courage they displayed when repelling
British, French and Israeli intervention against Egypt.
{Stormy applause.)

The Soviet people rejoice at the liberation of the peoples
of Asia and Africa from the yoke of colonialism. We, for
our part, are ready to do everything to facilitate the com-
plete liberation of the colonial and dependent countries.

The United Arab Republic follows the road of safe-
guarding the interests of its state against the intrigues of

376

the colonialists, the road of strengthening co-operation
with the peace-loving states.

The friendly relations between our countries took shape
on the basis of the recognition and application of the
principles of mutual respect for territorial integrity and
sovereignty, non-aggression, non-interference in one an-
other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, peace-
ful co-existence and economic co-operation. These great
principles now underlying the relations between many
countries fully accord with the peace foreign policy of the
Soviet Union which we have been carrying out since the
first years of Soviet power. The principles of peaceful
co-existence proclaimed by V. I. Lenin, the peace foreign
policy of the Soviet state, derive from the very essence of
our socialist system.

One of the chief factors making for rapprochement be-
tween states are mutually beneficial economic relations.
Sometimes an incorrect attitude on the part of one side
to the economic interests of the other side can lead to se-
rious disappointment. Sometimes it even happens between
friends that an incorrect attitude on the part of one coun-
try to the economic interests of another can lead to ad-
verse relations between them.

Nothing like this can be expected in relations between
our two countries. And we are sincerely glad of it. (Ap-
plause.)

There are, of course, different notions about friendship.
{Imperialists like to talk of their "friendship" with the
colonial peoples. But what they want in this friendship is
that the "friend"— for that is the kindly term they use
—should in fact be their slave, that he should work
humbly for his "friend," the colonialist, and that the
latter should enjoy all the fruits of his work.

It is this sort of "friendship" which the imperialist
Powers want. What they change occasionally is only
the forms of that "friendship," while seeking to perpetuate
its essence— the exploitation of one nation by another.

The colonialists often try to produce the impression that
the enslaved peoples are all but dreaming of such
"friendship." Their reasoning is roughly as follows:

"Yes, these countries were conquered once. But why
were they conquered? It was not as simple as that; edu-
cated people came there and brought civilization with
them.':

But since the people who lived in those countries —
Moslems or American Indians, for instance — wanted to
live in accordance with the laws and creeds of their fore-
fathers, the colonialists exterminated considerable num-
bers of them. "Civilization" triumphed in the end, and the
colonialists implanted a regime of their own in the coun-
tries they had conquered.

The predatory enslavement of peoples has been and is
still being carried out under cover of hypocritical claims
about the noble mission of the colonialists.

As a result of this practice of installing "civilization,"
many nations which were once the well-springs of the
progress of human culture, came, during the years of for-
eign domination, to lag far behind the countries which
were ruling the subject countries. And now the colonial-
ists maintain that they cannot withdraw from those coun-
tries as their peoples have not yet reached the stage in
their development which can make them capable of self-
government.

How preposterously false such assertions are! Is there,
indeed, any need for Dutch, British, French, or any other
colonialists, to teach statesmanship or the principles of
social structure to the peoples of Indonesia, Egypt, India,
Burma or any other similar country where culture devel-
oped much earlier than it did in the so-called civilized
countries?

We are most determined opponents of such "civiliza-
tion," opponents of the shameful system of colonialism.

We realize that the countries of Western Europe are
interested in the raw materials which they are getting

375

from countries of the East. But this does not in the least
mean that the imperialists may impose by force their own
predatory terms for the exploitation of the wealth of these
countries. The supplies of raw materials for the Western
nations must be ensured, not through robbing the coun-
tries of the East, but by developing mutually beneficial
trade relations, so that those countries may be properly
compensated by the Western nations for the raw materials
and goods which they supply to them. Far from obstruct-
ing such relations, we do everything to encourage them,
because we ourselves abide by the principle of developing
mutually advantageous relations with all countries.

But we can never, of course, remain indifferent should
imperialist circles try to impose their will by force on the
nations which have cast off the chains of colonial en-
slavement, should imperialists persist in their bankrupt
policy of colonialism. That is contrary to our understand-
ing of normal international relations. We shall always
be on the side of those who are fighting for the freedom
and independence of their countries. (Stormy applause.)

While establishing friendly relations with other coun-
tries, we have never forced on them, nor do we want to
force on them, our system of government, nor do we aim
to derive privileges or any special material benefits.

What are the Arab countries rich in? They are an ex-
ceedingly rich area of the world, possessing vast natural
resources and great potentialities for the development of
their economies and culture and for improving the well-
being of their people. Oil figures largely in the external
economic and trade relations of the Arab countries. But
nature has not been unkind to our country in this respect.
We also have unlimited oil reserves.

The Arab countries are blessed with plenty of sunshine,
and favourable climatic conditions enable them to grow
cotton— "white gold." We, too, have unlimited possibili-
ties for growing cotton and we grow it in large quanti-
ties in our fields.

379

What else do the Arab countries have? They grow banan-
as and dates, for instance. We have none of these. So,
shall we go to war about it? To please those who are par-
tial to bananas and dates we can buy them, by agree-
ment, from the United Arab Republic or any other country
in such a way that they can sell them to us at an accept-
able price and buy from us what they have not got. This
applies to other things as well: What we do not possess
for some reason or other, we can get through a mutually
beneficial exchange of goods, that is, by trading, and not
by extortion or blackmail. (Applause.)

Our people are used to earning their own living; we
respect the labour of all peoples and believe that every
man and woman and all nations have the right to dispose
of the fruits of their work and of the wealth of their coun-
try. (Applause.)

This is why there are no issues in our relations with
the United Arab Republic, or with any other country, that
could set us at loggerheads. If every country and every
government refrained from creating any artificial causes
for conflict, then normal relations between the nations
would be developing on a sound and firm basis.

The Soviet Union has concluded agreements with Egypt
and Syria, which are now a united Arab state. We shall
strictly abide by the terms of these treaties, which will,
we hope, promote the development of the United Arab
Republic and its economic advancement.

It is well known that political independence alone is
not enough. A country's political independence is strong
when the country has a firm economic basis. People who
are unable to defend their independence can lose it, either
as a result of direct enemy attack or of internal subversion
through a puppet government.

The imperialists have great "experience" in this matter.
They know how to create in dependent countries govern-
ments which are national only in form but which, in es-
sence, help to strengthen the domination of colonialism.

With the help of such governments, bought by the colo-
nialists, the imperialists are still virtual masters of the
economy of a whole series of states which in form seem
to be independent.

We rejoice at the fact that the United Arab Republic,
notwithstanding the intrigues of imperialist vultures, is
conducting an independent policy, firmly striving for
the development of its economy and the utmost strength-
ening of its national independence, and waging a strug-
gle for peace and international security. (Prolonged ap-
plause.)

Today the peoples have no greater concern than that
of preventing war. The peoples judge the policies of gov-
ernments according to what they do to improve the inter-
national situation, to create normal relations among all
states, to eliminate the cold war and to maintain peace.

We stand for the elimination of the cold war. This at-
titude of ours is well known to all honest people. The So-
viet Union has unilaterally stopped nuclear weapons
tests. Unfortunately, notwithstanding our persistent ap-
peals and the demand of the peoples that the United
States and Britain follow suit, those countries, far from fol-
lowing suit, have demonstratively begun to stage further
nuclear weapons tests.

However, we do not give up the hope that common
sense will ultimately prevail in world politics.

The Soviet Union stands for an end to the cold war and
for peaceful co-existence and competition between the
two social systems. We boldly look ahead and firmly be-
lieve in the socialist system, in the superiority of its
planned development that knows no crises.

The economy, science and technology of our country
are steadily advancing. Recently the whole world hailed
the launching of two Soviet artificial earth satellites, and
today a third Soviet sputnik has been launched into space
and has entered its orbit. (Stormy, prolonged applause.)
The weight of this sputnik is 1,327 kilograms (applause),

381

including scientific equipment weighing 968 kilograms.
(Applause.)

While rejoicing at these achievements of Soviet science
and engineering, we do not want in any way to humiliate
the United States, and still less to insult it, or to belittle
its achievements. Yet we cannot deny ourselves the pleas-
ure of expressing our pride in our country's success.
(Applause.)

If we take the weight of our third sputnik and, as is
done in arithmetic, divide it by the weight of an American
earth satellite, one would need a very large basket to
accommodate a sufficient number of orange-sized Amer-
ican artificial satellites to equal the weight of the third
Soviet sputnik. (Applause.)

I should very much like to be correctly understood in
the United States. We do not in any way doubt the United
States' achievements in industry, science and engineering,
but permit us not to deny ourselves our national pride
and joy regarding our science and technology, regarding
our industry, regarding our socialist system, which has
ensured us outstanding success and enabled us to outstrip
the technology and science of the United States in this
respect. (Stormy applause.)

We have said more than once, and we say again, that
in no case do we want to use our achievements to harm
mankind — neither directly nor indirectly by means of
threats and blackmail. We only want to emphasize that
attempts by certain circles to surround us by some artifi-
cial barrier, to isolate us from other countries, and their
effort to impede the development of our economy, to
retard the advance of science and engineering in the
Soviet Union, which certain U.S. circles have been trying
to do for several years, have failed to achieve their ob-
jects. On the contrary — they want to isolate us, but in
fact, instead of isolating us, they are isolating themselves
from our successes. For it has become clear to all that
Soviet science and technology have, in a number of fields,

382

surpassed the development of American science and en-
gineering. (Prolonged applause.)

Isn't it time for a more realistic approach to things,
not to frighten each other, but rather to sit down at one
table and talk matters over, about how to go on living,
how to improve contacts and extend economic and cultur-
al relations between our countries? The peoples expect
this, and not only the peoples of the Soviet Union but
also the people of the United States, the peoples of the
world. (Applause.)

The new and outstanding achievement of Soviet scien-
tists, engineers, technicians and workers who have designed,
manufactured and launched such a big artificial satel-
lite into space, shows that scientific and technical thought
in the Soviet Union is developing at an exceptionally
rapid rate, and that Soviet industry is able to accomplish
any task of modern development.

Permit me, from the bottom of my heart, to congratu-
late our scientists, engineers and workers who took part
in the creation of the new artificial earth satellite, to con-
gratulate them on their outstanding victory. (Stormy,
prolonged applause.)

Everyone knows that we. have no call to search for a
solution to international problems through aggression
and war. Without war, we shall the sooner carry out all
the plans for our peaceful construction.

We are sincerely striving for a relaxation of interna-
tional tension. That is why we are surprised at the fact
that the fully substantiated protest by the Soviet Govern-
ment against the flights by American planes carrying hyd-
rogen bombs towards the frontiers of the Soviet Union
has not found support in the Security Council, for it is
precisely that body that bears direct responsibility for
averting the threat of war and for promoting the main-
tenance of peace.

Instead of denouncing those responsible for such
flights which are dangerous to peace, the U.S. represen-
ts

tatives tried to substitute one question for another. Thus,
instead of denouncing those who are taking aggressive
steps and who may provoke a war, they propose that we
should recognize the right to make such flights, only on a
smaller scale. The United States Government submitted
a proposal to the United Nations for establishing inspec-
tion in the Arctic and promised to reduce the number of
flights by its planes towards the frontiers of the Soviet
Union. To reduce, mark you, and not to discontinue. But
how can one accept such proposals?

The Security Council is undermining its own prestige
by following in the wake of the sponsors of these danger-
ous manoeuvres. Such actions are not accidental. The
Security Council consists almost entirely of representa-
tives of those countries that are either dependent on the
United States or are tied to it through military blocs.
Who can take seriously claims that, for instance, the rep-
resentative of the wretched Chiang Kai-shek clique, in-
stalled in the Security Council, can act objectively and
contribute to the maintenance of peace? He represents no
one and lives by sponging on the United States. And can
certain other representatives of the NATO states voice
opinions different from those desired by the United
States? Of course not, because they are tied hand and foot
by various obligations to the United States.

It is high time to understand, however, that arithmetic
cannot always be applied in politics.

Sometimes we are blamed for frequently resorting to
the veto in the Security Council. We do not exercise this
right very often, but we do exercise it. We did not spon-
sor the inclusion of this rule in the United Nations Char-
ter, but we believe it to be a good rule. It makes it pos-
sible to avoid the taking of unjust decisions and compels
a search by joint efforts for correct solutions of disputed
problems— solutions taking into account the interests of
all the Powers concerned, the interests of maintaining
peace. The right of veto protects the United Nations from

384

the adoption of tendentious decisions that are sometimes
even dangerous to the cause of peace. And we shall ex-
ercise this right in order to protect the world from un-
just decisions.

At the present time all nations place great hopes in a
summit conference. Why do we believe such a meeting
might be useful? Because, in our opinion, certain inter-
national problems are already ripe for a solution. Agree-
ment on urgent questions, at a meeting of the Heads
of Government would mark the beginning of an improve-
ment in the international atmosphere, would be an ad-
vance towards eliminating the cold war. If we do settle
some questions, we shall create a sound foundation for
the solution of more complicated problems as well.

A summit meeting is a serious matter and all the pos-
sible participants must take it seriously. For our part,
we have done and are doing everything possible to bring
about an early meeting and to make it a success.

Some Western representatives are putting forward ob-
viously unacceptable conditions and items which a sum-
mit conference must allegedly take up. Can such a con-
ference really be a success if it discusses the state sys-
tem in the East European countries and examines the
German question in the way suggested by the Western
Powers, ignoring the existence of the two German
states? The very presentation of the question lacks justi-
fication, as we have said more than once. The German
question can be looked into at the summit only in so far
as the conclusion of a peace treaty is concerned. The
reunification of Germany is the domestic affair of the
German people.

Such questions can only be raised if one wants to ob-
struct the calling of a summit conference, to wreck the
improvement that is now to be felt in the international
situation.

One of the most vital international problems awaiting
solution is the question of disarmament. We have already

385

said that the Soviet Union is willing to settle it, and
to settle it immediately. But it must be settled with due
regard for the interests of the security of all parties con-
cerned.

The experience of our relations with the Western coun-
tries has shown that they do not want to achieve a fun-
damental solution of the disarmament problem. However,
a gradual approach is possible. Why not reach agree-
ment, for instance, on the ending of nuclear weapons
tests and the reduction of armed forces, and then try to
solve other problems of disarmament and the problems of
introducing effective control?

Mr. Eisenhower, the President of the United States of
America, recently suggested that technical experts should
be instructed to agree on the forms for control to prevent
any state from staging secret explosions of nuclear

weapons.

Our attitude on this question has always been clear.
Far from rejecting it in the past, we ourselves suggested
the introduction of appropriate control over the observ-
ance of a possible agreement on the ending of atomic
and hydrogen bomb tests. But we believed that, above
all, agreement had to be reached on the main issue— the
prohibition of tests— before taking up technical questions
connected with this. However, since the United States
Administration believes that positive results can be pro-
duced sooner in this way, we have decided to meet them
half-way and are ready to nominate our experts without
further delay and to instruct them to work out the neces-
sary details on this question. We say to our partners:
Let us try this possibility, too.

It is high time to embark upon a realistic road and,
proceeding on the basis of the existing situation, on the
basis of a sober analysis of the state of affairs, search
for a solution to pressing problems on which acceptable
agreements can be reached without violating anyone's
security. Such an approach would, in our opinion, bring

386

about a reduction of international tension, the ending of
the cold war and the creation of conditions for the peace-
ful co-existence in which all the peoples of the world are
so interested.
Comrades and friends!

The visit of friendship to the Soviet Union of President
Nasser and his companions is drawing to a close. During
these days our guests have been to a number of regions of
the country and have seen what warm friendship and sincere
sympathy the Soviet people entertain for the United Arab
Republic and its freedom-loving people. We are happy
about this visit, because we want more and more guests
to come to us in order to study our life. Everything that
they may consider useful, that suits them, can be used
by them in the interests of their peoples. We are ready
to share with our friends our experience, the achieve-
ments of science and culture, and technical and other
knowledge, to share in a disinterested way, as real friends
do. (Applause.)

During President Nasser's stay in our country meet-
ings and discussions have taken place on questions of in-
terest to the governments of both countries. We have es-
tablished that there is complete mutual understanding
between the governments of our countries on all ques-
tions affecting mutual interests.

The results of our conversations are set out in the joint
statement.

President Nasser's visit to the U.S.S.R. is of great im-
portance for the strengthening of peace in the Middle
East and throughout the world.

We note with satisfaction that the successful develop-
ment of economic and cultural co-operation between our
countries, resting on the principles of equality and friendly
co-operation, greatly benefits both the Soviet Union and
the United Arab Republic.

In strengthening the friendship between the peace-lov-
ing peoples we must always bear in mind that the impe-

387

rialists have never abandoned and, it seems, will not
abandon their attempts to interfere with this friendship.
We must display vigilance with regard to the imperial-
ists' intrigues and must not allow them to disrupt the
growing co-operation between the United Arab Republic,
the Soviet Union and the other peace-loving countries.

We regard the visit to the Soviet Union of President
Gamal Abdel Nasser and his companions as a valuable
contribution to the strengthening of the friendship be-
tween the Soviet Union and the United Arab Republic.

Let us further strengthen and expand the mutually ben-
eficial economic and cultural relations between the So-
viet Union and the United Arab Republic, the co-opera-
tion between our countries in an effort to ease interna-
tional tension and strengthen world peace.

We sincerely wish our esteemed and distinguished
guest, the national hero of the Arab people, the President
of the United Arab Republic, Gamal Abdel Nasser, and
his companions good health and success for the good of
their country, for the benefit of world peace. (Stormy
applause.)

Long live Arab-Soviet friendship! {Stormy, prolonged

applause.)

Long live world peace! (Stormy, prolonged applause.)

SPEECH

AT LUNCHEON IN HONOUR OF FINNISH PRESIDENT

DR. URHO KEKKONEN

May 23, 1958

Mr. President,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Friends,

Allow me on behalf of the Soviet Government and my-
self personally to welcome the President of the Finnish Re-
public, Dr. Kekkonen, and the statesmen accompanying
him.

We are very pleased that you have come to our country
on a visit of friendship. We already came to know you and
your country well when we visited you last year. Some of
our comrades who are here have also been to Finland or
met leaders of the Finnish Republic in Moscow.

Very good relations have been established between our
states and our peoples. We shall always have a good word
for that outstanding Finnish statesman, the late President
Paasikivi, who laid the foundations of the good-neighbourly
relations between our countries, which are now becoming
friendly relations. It is a pleasure for us to note that the
policy pursued by the late President Paasikivi was com-
pletely in line with our common interests and that in the im-
plementation of that policy a prominent role was played by
the then Prime Minister of Finland who is now our dear
guest, the President of the Finnish Republic, Dr. Kekkonen.
I think there is no need to specify whether it was a Paasi-

389

kivi-Kekkonen or a Kekkonen-Paasikivi policy— either is
good for our peoples and served to strengthen the friendly
relations between our states. The initiative in pursuing that
policy, I was told by a Finnish Social-Democrat when our
delegation visited Finland, belongs to Dr. Kekkonen.

I think that all those present here will agree that we
should like this policy to be a policy not only of individual
statesmen but also of the peoples of our countries.

Relations between our countries are developing in the
right direction. This can best be traced in the development
of Soviet-Finnish relations over the past five years. The
strengthening of friendly Soviet-Finnish relations pleases
the peoples of the Soviet Union as well as the people of
Finland. In its foreign policy the Soviet Union wishes only
friendship and peace with all countries and all peoples.
Above all we want friendship with our neighbours, with
countries that border on us.

Unfortunately, there are still people who enjoy raking
in the dustbin of history to find something to spoil our
relations. Some Finnish papers sought notoriety in this
thankless business. It is no good work they are doing and
our peoples will not praise them for it. Such raking in the
past and the search for facts which do not help to improve
relations between our countries run counter to the
policy pursued by the Government of Finland and the
Government of our country. Both our states stand for
peaceful co-existence and co-operation. Consequently, they
stand for ensuring world peace, which is in line with the
interests of the Soviet and Finnish peoples and all peace-
loving countries.

We should like to see Soviet-Finnish relations continue
to grow stronger and develop: For this there is no need to
rake up the past or return to questions solved by time and

events.

I should have liked not to have to touch upon such ques-
tions today in such splendid friendly company, but I am
constrained to do so by statements in some Finnish papers

390

which do not take a sober enough view of the situation,
and rake up the past in order to spoil our current relations.

You know our policy. We have repeatedly set out its ba-
sic principles in our documents.

In order to establish stability in the world and avert a
new war it is necessary to recognize the status quo, that is,
the situation which has now taken shape, and not to try
to change that situation by force, otherwise the inevitabili-
ty of war will have to be recognized. The experience of
history reminds us that state frontiers have never been
changed without wars. Let us therefore proceed from the
realities of the situation and on that basis develop our co-
operation and the relations between our countries. Let us
develop economic ties, let us trade, let us help each other
to develop industry. Your country can do much that is
useful to us and probably you will find in our country much
that is of interest to you and that can be used to raise and
develop your economy.

Our policy is clear. We are interested not only in devel-
oping our economy and raising the prosperity of our coun-
try. We are also interested in seeing your economy flourish
and your country develop, and the welfare of the Finnish
people enhanced. Our growing orders placed with Finnish
industry obviously play a definite role in ensuring fuller
employment to the Finnish population.

We are able to supply you with the necessary equipment
to build a metallurgical plant and to develop other indus-
tries. We are prepared to examine concrete proposals in
order, taking account of your circumstances, to do every-
thing possible in that respect. This will be conducive to the
development of Finland's economy, to fuller employment
and to a further rise in the living standards of the people.

In order to solve the problem of employment, in my opin-
ion, an agreement could be concluded, for example, on
the construction in Finland of a metallurgical plant by Fin-
nish labour with Soviet blueprints and equipment. I think
that this would be well received by the peoples and would

391

benefit Finland's economy. It would be pleasant for us to
render this friendly service to our neighbour.

The technical level of Soviet plant and equipment
is fully in line with modern requirements. Our country has
entered the international arena of economic competition.
We are currently building a very big metallurgical plant
in India. West Germany and Britain are also building sim-
ilar plants. Soon it will become clear whose plant is better.
We do not underrate the abilities and potentialities of
German and British industry. The Germans and the British
are good metallurgists. But today Soviet metallurgists do
not lag behind and, as our people say, they will not fall
down on the job, they will be equal to the task.

A few words about the Saima Canal. We understand that
the exploitation of the canal is of great economic impor-
tance to Finland. We are prepared to negotiate and find
mutually acceptable solutions in order to give the Finnish
Republic the opportunity of using the canal on a treaty ba-
sis. International practice provides many examples of a
similar use of canals on the territory of other states. Why
should our countries not come to an agreement about the
use of that canal for the transit shipment of Finnish goods?
The solution of this problem is in line with our desire to
live in friendship and help each other to develop the econo-
mies of our respective countries.

I propose a toast to the health of our dear guest, the es-
teemed President of the Finnish Republic, Dr. Kekkonen,
and to the health of his colleagues who are accompanying
him and whom we have met. We regard them as our friends
who are doing everything to develop and strengthen
friendly relations between our countries. And this can only
be beneficial both to Finland and to the Soviet Union.

We sincerely desire that mutually advantageous eco-
nomic relations should continue to develop between our
countries as successfully as they have been developing up to
now, because that is the very basis for the development and
strengthening of friendly relations. I should like to say:

392

Let us resist those who wish to cool and poison the atmos-
phere of our good relations with Finland. We shall struggle
against such people at home, while you could undertake a
moral obligation to struggle in your country against the
forces who wish to poison the atmosphere of friendship
with the Soviet Union and who are hindering the strength-
ening of friendly relations between our states. To all
those who wish the best for their native country it is clear
that good-neighbourly relations between our countries are
very advantageous to our peoples, and not only to our peo-
ples, but also to the peoples of all countries who stand for
world peace.

We hope that all those present here join us in this desire
and we do not in the least doubt that our dear guest,
Dr. Kekkonen, will exert his efforts in that direction.

To friendship between the peoples of the Soviet Union
and Finland!

To our dear guests!

To the President of the Finnish Republic, to our dear
guest, the esteemed Dr. Kekkonen!

SPEECH

AT MEETING OF POLITICAL CONSULTATIVE

COMMITTEE OF WARSAW TREATY

May 24, 1958

Dear Comrades,

More than two years have passed since the last meeting
of the Political Consultative Committee of the member-
states of the Warsaw Treaty, held in Prague in 1956. This
period has been packed with many important inter-
national events.

In summing up briefly the meaning and significance of
these events, we may say with confidence that the princi-
pal result of the last two years is the further growth of the
strength of the countries of the socialist camp and their in-
creased cohesion, and the growth of the forces of peace
throughout the world. These factors are having an ever-
increasing effect on the international situation, tending to
remove the danger of a new war and to consolidate world
peace.

It would be a mistake, however, to ignore the fact that
influential circles of the imperialist Powers, in spite of the
obvious failures of their "positions of strength" policy, are
intensifying their military preparations, openly banking on
preparing a war with the use of nuclear and rocket weapons.
In these conditions the principal task today, just as was
the case at our 1956 meeting in Prague, is to wage a per-
sistent struggle for peace, for the removal of the threat of
a new war breaking out, for relations among states to

394

be based on the principles of peaceful co-existence and
business-like co-operation. The efforts of all peace-loving
states and peace supporters in all countries must be
aimed at ending the arms race, putting an end to the
cold war and establishing an atmosphere of confidence
in international relations.

Wars between states have always brought grievous
distress to the people. But a future war, if the aggres-
sors should succeed in unleashing it, threatens to become
the most devastating war in the history of mankind, be-
cause there is no guarantee that it would not become a
nuclear war, with all its catastrophic consequences. In the
conflagration of such a war millions of people would
perish; great cities and industrial centres would be razed
from the face of the earth; unique cultural monuments
created by mankind throughout the ages would be irrevo-
cably destroyed, and vast territories would be poisoned
with radioactive fall-out.

Therefore there is not, nor can there be, any task more
important or noble than that of barring the road to a new
war, of relieving the peoples of our planet of the grave
danger that is looming over them. This is what the su-
preme interests of mankind demand.

Overcoming the Resistance of Forces Hindering

Normalization of the International Situation

and Peaceful Co-existence

The peoples refuse to reconcile themselves to the grow-
ing danger of an outbreak of nuclear war and with ever-
increasing determination they are opposing the aggres-
sive policy of certain influential Western circles. The re-
sistance of broad masses of the people to the adventur-
ist policy of "balancing on the brink of war" has as-
sumed unprecedented scope.

Mass public organizations, trade unions, prominent
figures in culture and science, members of the clergy,

395

millions of ordinary men and women in all countries of
the world are coming out in favour of the peaceful co-
existence of states, irrespective of their social systems, in
favour of settling outstanding international problems by
peaceful negotiation, and in favour of a radical relaxa-
tion of international tension.

Now not only the governments of the countries of the
socialist camp but also many governments of other peace-
loving states, and in particular those which have re-
cently freed themselves from colonial oppression, are
supporting the idea of negotiations for the purpose of
easing international tension.

One should bear in mind, however, that along with the
steady growth of the forces striving to strengthen peace
and to rid mankind of the danger of a devastating nu-
clear war, those circles in imperialist states who pin their
hopes on continuing the ''positions of strength" policy
and preparing a new war, are also intensifying their ac-
tivity.

These circles were alarmed by the fact that after the
Geneva Conference of the Heads of Government of the
Four Powers in 1955 there appeared signs of a relaxation
cf international tension. They feared lest the extension of
business-like co-operation between socialist and capitalist
states result in an easing of international tension, in
the ending of the cold war, which would provide the pre-
requisites for solving the disarmament problem.

Certain influential circles regard such a course of
events as a threat to their own selfish interests. They fear
that the solution of the disarmament problem, and con-
sequently a drastic cut in military spending, might re-
sult in a considerable reduction of the super-profits which
monopolies are making out of military orders. For this
reason the monopolies are interested in preventing the
relaxation of international tension, in preserving the state
of cold war, in again aggravating relations among coun-
tries.

396

A clear example of the efforts of international reac-
tionary forces to worsen the international atmosphere and
create a dangerous hotbed of war in Europe was the
counter-revolutionary uprising staged in Hungary. That
gamble fell through, however. The Hungarian people,
with the assistance of countries of the socialist camp, up-
held their own people's power and gave a fitting rebuff
to the international reactionary forces and the Hungarian
counter-revolution.

The smashing of the counter-revolutionary uprising in
Hungary convincingly demonstrated the strength of the
people's democratic system, the might and cohesion of
the socialist camp.

The events in the Middle East, when certain Western
circles launched an open military attack on Egypt, are
still fresh in everyone's memory. By organizing the Brit-
ish, French and Israeli aggression against Egypt, those
circles planned, under cover of the hue and cry raised
over the Hungarian events, to suppress the national-lib-
eration movement in the Middle East, to restore their
colonial domination both in Egypt and in the other coun-
tries in that area.

The heroic resistance of the Egyptian people, and also
the firm stand and assistance of the Soviet Union, the
Chinese People's Republic and the other countries of the
socialist camp, had a sobering effect on the bellicose cir-
cles of Britain, France and Israel and made them end
the aggression and withdraw their armed forces from
Egyptian territory.

The successful struggle of the Egyptian people against
the foreign invaders resulted in the consolidation of the
freedom and independence, not only of Egypt, but of
other Arab states as well. Seeing in this a threat to the
domination of the American monopolies in the Middle
Eastern countries, the United States put forward the so-
called Dulles-Eisenhower doctrine. This doctrine has the
aim of facilitating— under the pretext of filling the "va-

397

cuum" allegedly formed following the defeat of Britain
and France— the American monopolies' task of replac-
ing Britain and France in the Arab East and putting
down the national-liberation movement in Africa and the
Middle East.

It is common knowledge that the Dulles-Eisenhower
Doctrine met with resistance in the Middle Eastern coun-
tries, whose peoples have learned sufficiently well from
their own experience what colonial oppression is like.

Having suffered a defeat in this fresh attempt to es-
tablish their domination in the Middle East, the initiators
of this colonialist doctrine began to hatch plots against
Syria. By conspiring against the lawful Syrian Govern-
ment they counted on creating a military conflict be-
tween the countries of this area, on aggravating the
situation in the entire Middle East, on strangling Syria's
independence and thus attaining their own selfish
ends.

At this difficult moment the Syrian people received the
help and support of the Soviet Union and other peace-
loving countries, which prevented the aggressive circles
from carrying out their plans.

The war against the Algerian people, who are uphold-
ing their lawful right to self-determination and independ-
ence, is still continuing. A peaceful settlement of the Al-
gerian question through the satisfaction of these just de-
mands of the Algerian people and with due consideration
for the historical relations between France and Algeria
would be in line with the interests of world peace. We
are deeply convinced that such a settlement will be in
keeping with the interests of the peoples both of Algeria
and France.

By ending the war against Algeria and thereby elimi-
nating the possible danger of its growing into a large-
scale military conflict, which cannot but alarm the So-
viet people, France would contribute greatly to the strength-
ening of world peace.

398

The systematic raids by British troops on the peaceful
towns and villages of Yemen are also continuing.

These actions of Britain, inflicting numerous losses
among the peaceful Yemeni population, are arousing the
just anger of all decent people.

An object of foreign intrigues and dangerous provoca-
tions at the present time is the Lebanon, where the West-
ern Powers are openly meddling in the internal affairs of
that state with a view to establishing a colonial regime
there and dealing a blow at the national-liberation move-
ment of the peoples of the Arab East in general.

Some states which are members of the aggressive
SEATO bloc have embarked upon the path of military in-
terference in the internal affairs of the Indonesian Repub-
lic where they are rallying together the local reaction-
ary forces, supplying them with arms, and even smug-
gling armed hirelings into the country to fight against the
lawful Government of Indonesia.

Recent events show that the ruling circles of the West-
ern Powers continue to do everything to step up the arms
race, from which a handful of monopolists are enriching
themselves at the expense of millions of ordinary work-
ers, and continue to oppose the easing of international
tension and to cling to the cold war policy. This is seen
particularly clearly from the attitude of the Western
Powers toward the question of calling a summit confer-
ence with the participation of the Heads of Government,
as proposed by the Soviet Union. Striving to delay the
summit meeting, they repeat incessantly the ne-
cessity for "making thorough preparations for it," although
the entire world knows that the preparations are not the
point at issue.

In the interests of the early convocation of this meet-
ing, the Soviet Government has met half-way the wishes
of the Western Powers on several questions. It agreed to
preparatory work being carried out through diplomatic
channels and through Foreign Ministers, and also to the

399

holding, in the course of these preliminary conferences,
if need be and by mutual consent, of an exchange of views
on the problems which the parties suggest for inclusion
in the agenda of the summit meeting, for the purpose of
ascertaining the desirability of including a particular
question and the possibility of making mutually accept-
able decisions on it.

The Governments of the Western Powers, however, are
now apparently looking for fresh excuses for avoiding a
meeting with the participation of the Heads of Govern-
ment.

Indeed, although more than five months have gone by
since the Soviet Union proposed a summit meeting, the
Governments of the United States, Britain and France
have still given no answer either with regard to the
questions involved in organizing the conference, namely
concerning its date, place and composition, or with re-
gard to the range of problems which are to be considered
at the conference.

Thus, when it is a question of preparations for a top-
level conference to settle pressing international problems,
the Western Powers and their diplomatic departments
certainly move at a snail's pace.

There has been more than enough time to prepare the
conference. But the fact is that the leaders who now
stand at the helm of the leading NATO member-states
refuse to take the road of peaceful co-existence, refuse to
renounce the policy of cold war. This is why the so greatly
needed turning-point in the development of international
events towards the normalization of the international
atmosphere has not as yet been reached.

However, we are now living, not in the 18th, and not
even in the 19th century, when some rulers or other could
ignore the will of the peoples, although it must be said
that even in those times it was far from safe to do so.
In our days hundreds of millions of people in all coun-
tries have found their way to active political life and

400

hardly anyone would be able to ignore indefinitely the
will of the peoples for peace.

Already at the present time the more far-sighted po-
litical leaders of the capitalist world have realized the
need for radical changes in method and approach to the
solution of international problems. True, assurances of
their peaceable intentions and readiness to settle interna-
tional problems by negotiation are not rarely heard from
those leaders of the Western Powers who shape the policy
of military blocs. But real intentions are gauged, not
by words, but by deeds. If we look at the policy of the
Western Powers from this angle, we shall obtain a to-
tally different picture.

It is a fact, comrades, that while dragging out nego-
tiations on a summit meeting, the Western Powers are
intensifying their military preparations and for this pur-
pose have already held a series of conferences of various
military blocs— NATO, SEATO, the Baghdad Pact.

The feverish haste with which this activity is being de-
veloped indicates that the opponents of a relaxation of
international tension, sensing the indomitable force of the
popular demand for a summit meeting, want to confront
the peoples with accomplished facts, to worsen the atmos-
phere, to prevent the calling of such a meeting or to
doom it to failure.

The Western Powers are now trying hard to draw
more states into military blocs, to unite the existing ag-
gressive groupings— NATO, SEATO and the Baghdad
Pact— in a single bloc under the leadership of the United
States of America, and to create new military blocs
directed against the Soviet Union and the People's
Democracies. In this connection one might mention, for
instance, the plans for the so-called Mediterranean
bloc.

However, try as the imperialists may to camouflage the
real purpose of the aggressive blocs, the latest sessions
of NATO, SEATO and the. Baghdad Pact show that those

401

taking part in them intend to foment the cold war, to
carry on their "positions of strength" policy, which has
been condemned by the peoples, and to continue the arms
race. The establishment of rocket and nuclear bases, the
arming of other participants in the blocs with American
nuclear weapons— such are the principal items on the
agendas of sessions of these aggressive groupings.

Let us take, for instance, the session of the NATO
Council of December 1957 and the session of the SEATO
Council held in Manila early this year. They show that
the United States, Britain and certain other Western coun-
tries are carrying out at a forced pace military prepa-
rations which tend to worsen the international climate.

The meeting of NATO War Ministers held in April and
the NATO Council session held early this month in Co-
penhagen had the same aims.

The plans of American ruling circles with regard to the
Federal Republic of Germany are especially dangerous
to the cause of peace. Ignoring the lessons of the recent
past, the rulers of the U.S.A. close their eyes to the fact
that the arming with atomic weapons of the Federal Re-
public of Germany, whose ruling circles openly disagree
with the existing European frontiers, can have conse-
quences the gravity of which is, possibly, not realized
even by some of West Germany's NATO allies, not to
mention the fact that it inevitably leads to a dangerous
nuclear weapons race between the European states.

When the Western Powers concluded the Paris Agree-
ments, the Soviet Government and the governments of the
other countries in the socialist camp gave warning that
the drawing of the Federal Republic of Germany into
NATO would result in the absolutely unrestricted remili-
tarization of West Germany and in strengthening the
circles seeking revenge. The Western politicians tried to
present this warning of ours as "communist propaganda."

Moreover, in order to justify West Germany's inclusion
in NATO, the ruling circles of the Western Powers loudly

402

claimed that this would permit them to exercise effective
control over the quantitative and qualitative arming of
Germany. In those days Western propaganda insisted
that the Federal Republic of Germany would under no
circumstances be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

However, the ruling circles of the Western Powers no
longer speak about this at present. On the contrary, the
Western Powers, and above all the United States, are
striving to arm West Germany with atomic weapons. This
policy made possible the Bundestag decision to equip the
West German armed forces with nuclear weapons— a de-
cision approved by NATO allies of the Federal Republic
of Germany— and also the United States decision to set
up nuclear weapons depots and American rocket bases
on the territory of West Germany.

Thus, the ruling circles of West Germany have set foot
on the road to preparing a nuclear war— a road fraught
with serious consequences. In its Appeal of March 31 to
the Bundestag of the Federal Republic of Germany, the
Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. justifiably emphasized
that the implementation of the decision to equip the West
German army with nuclear and rocket weapons, like the
establishment of foreign atomic and rocket bases on West
German territory, was leading to a situation in Europe
very much similar to the time when Hitler Germany
launched preparations for the Second World War. It is not
without reason, therefore, that the plans for delivering
nuclear weapons into the hands of the West German mil-
itary clique have caused serious alarm and anxiety in
many states and among the peoples, including the popu-
lation of West Germany.

One must be blind not to see that the decision of the
Bundestag to arm West Germany with atomic weapons
does more than merely widen the split in Germany. The
nuclear arming of West Germany would shut the only
remaining door to the restoration of the German people's
national unity through rapprochement and agreement be-

403

tween the German Democratic Republic and the Federal
Republic of Germany.

Using the system of military blocs— NATO, SEATO
and the Baghdad Pact— the United States is stationing
on the territories of their member-countries special task
units equipped with nuclear weapons. What is more, offi-
cials in the United States and other Western countries do
not even consider it necessary to conceal their plans to
employ atomic and hydrogen weapons against the Soviet
Union and the other peace-loving states.

In one of his numerous statements made in 1957,
for instance, the Supreme Commander of the NATO Armed
Forces, General Norstad of the United States, said that
NATO strategy was based on nuclear weapons. Distort-
ing the foreign policy of the Soviet Union and ascribing
all kinds of intrigue to it, Norstad said that in the event
of "Russian aggression" the NATO armed forces were
ready to use atomic weapons first, even if the Soviet Union
declared that it would not employ nuclear weapons. The
same idea was reiterated in the British Government's re-
cently published White Paper, which openly proclaims
Britain's intention of using nuclear weapons against the
Soviet Union first.

The question suggests itself: Did the authors of the
White Paper consider where this policy will lead? Did
they ponder over the consequences of an atomic war to
their country?

Ruling circles of the United States now attach partic-
ular importance to the creation of a network of nuclear
and rocket bases in Europe and other areas of the world,
directed against the countries of the socialist camp. It is
easy to understand that the very idea of establishing
such bases many thousands of kilometres away from
American territory proper has nothing in common ei-
ther with the interests of U.S. defence or the security of
the countries where these bases are situated, but is from
beginning to end an expression of an aggressive policy.

404

As is well known, the signing of an Anglo-American
agreement on establishing rocket launching sites in Brit-
ain was announced in February of this year. Such an act,
which is unpopular in Western countries, and especially
in Britain herself, cannot, of course, be regarded as an
expression of a desire on the part of the Governments
of the United States and Britain to help to ease inter-
national tension.

The leaders of the North Atlantic bloc are spreading
fabrications of all kinds in order to somehow justify in the
eyes of the peoples the establishment of rocket bases on
the territories of West European states. An example of
these fabrications can be found in the false reports alleg-
ing that the Soviet Union has bases for intermediate-
range rockets on the territories of the German Democrat-
ic Republic, Poland and Czechoslovakia. It can easily be
seen that such reports are aimed at aggravating interna-
tional tension for the purpose of continuing the arms
race. Is not the intention of the United States to continue
the arms race confirmed by President Eisenhower's state-
ment on May 6 that the United States plans to spend
more than $40,000 million a year on armaments for the
next 10, 15, and perhaps even 40 years? It undoubtedly is.

However, such a policy on the part of the United States
and other NATO countries naturally compels the Warsaw
Treaty member-states to draw the appropriate conclu-
sions. However unwilling to do so, they might be com-
pelled by circumstances to consider the question of sta-
tioning rocket weapons in the German Democratic Re-
public, Poland and Czechoslovakia. What would this
mean for the situation in Europe? It would mean that
the distance between rocket installations aimed at one
another would become smaller and smaller, which would
inevitably increase the danger of an outbreak of war, of
a terrible war of extermination. It is well known that rock-
et weapons are area weapons, striking at enormous
areas and objectives. They are weapons for the mass ex-

405

termination of human beings and for the destruction of
immense material wealth.

We should like to hope that NATO leaders will dis-
play sound judgement and not compel the Warsaw Trea-
ty states to take reciprocal measures with regard to the
stationing of rocket weapons.

Leaders of the United States responsible for American
foreign policy obviously hope that the presence of Amer-
ican bases on the territory of European states will en-
sure that those states automatically become involved in
a war which might be unleashed by the United States.
These plans which envisage the use of territories of oth-
er states for establishing bases, atomic and thermo-nu-
clear weapons depots and sites for launching rockets with
nuclear war-heads, show that the American politicians,
at the cost of sacrificing their allies, hope to divert a re-
taliatory blow and to protect the territory of the United
States of America from the fatal consequences of a nu-
clear war, or at least to mitigate those consequences.

Some of the military leaders of the United States do
not even consider it necessary to conceal the real pur-
pose of American overseas bases. At the end of last year
the NATO Chief of Staff, U.S. General Schuyler, spoke
at a press conference in Oslo. The gist of his statement
was that the principal advantage of American bases in
Europe consisted in their being far removed from U.S.
vital centres.

As for the European countries on whose territories the
American bases are situated, Schuyler said that those
countries should be prepared for the possible use of nu-
clear weapons against them. Such is the prospect which
American atomic strategists hold out for the peoples of
Europe!

No wonder that in these conditions the policy of the
ruling circles of the United States is arousing increasing
anxiety and mistrust among its NATO partners and in
other countries on whose territories American bases are

406

being established. It is not by chance that the Govern-
ments of such countries as Norway and Denmark, dis-
playing a sense of duty and responsibility for the future
of their countries, have opposed the establishment of
American nuclear and rocket weapon launching sites on
their territories.

One cannot help feeling surprised at the short-sight-
edness of American ruling circles who hope to divert a
retaliatory blow from themselves to their allies in the
event of the United States unleashing a nuclear war.
Some people should not forget that intercontinental bal-
listic rockets and other modern means of warfare can
now hit targets at any point on the globe.

If there is talk of American bases brought forward
close to the frontiers of the states against which these
bases are aimed, it would be naive to suppose that only the
American side possesses modern means of warfare. The
progress of science and technology now offers equal op-
portunities for highly developed industrial countries to
manufacture weapons of the most up-to-date types. Every
intelligent person who has some understanding of the
progress of science and technology realizes clearly that
the Soviet Union and the other Warsaw Treaty countries
can have, and do have, everything necessary to avoid
being placed in a strategically disadvantageous position.

A very convincing proof of the technical potential of
the Warsaw Treaty states is the creation in the U.S.S.R.
of intercontinental rockets and the launching of Soviet
artificial earth satellites. It is not advisable, therefore, for
anyone to proceed from positions of strength, or for either
side to threaten the other. The end product of all this is
only an arms race, and an arms race, as everyone knows,
has eventually always led to war.

Every statesman who is conscious of his responsibil-
ity must make a sober appraisal of the situation and, far
from doing anything, for his part, that might be likely
to make the atmosphere more charged and promote the

407

arms race— and thus tend to bring war nearer, he must
make it his concern to bring about an end to the cold
war and work in earnest towards creating conditions for
good-neighbourly relations between all states. We have
never failed, nor shall we ever fail, to pursue this goal.

An atmosphere of war hysteria is being maintained by
regular flights of American planes loaded with atomic
and hydrogen bombs, both over the territory of the Unit-
ed States itself and over that of a number of other coun-
tries. Is much needed under such circumstances for a
nuclear war to break out?

Anyone whose mind is not afflicted by war psychosis
shares the feeling of grave alarm and righteous anger
with which world opinion reacted to the news that a nu-
clear bomb "accidentally" dropped from an American bomb-
er on a small town in the American State of South Caro-
lina, and although the bomb failed to explode, the peoples
of the world are posing this legitimate question: What will
happen if an incident like that repeats itself and if this
time a nuclear explosion, with all its horrible consequen-
ces, does occur? What guarantees do we have .against an
accidental explosion of an American atomic or hydrogen
bomb on American territory or on that of some other state
over which American bombers loaded with atomic
weapons are flying, being taken for a surprise attack?
There is nothing to guarantee that this will not happen.
Thus, an accidental atom bomb explosion may well trigger
off another world war.

A wave of indignation has swept all countries at the
news that the United States is systematically dispatching
its military aircraft with atomic and hydrogen bombs fly-
ing towards the frontiers of the Soviet Union. Such ac-
tions on the part of the American military command,
which are unprecedented in peacetime, are indeed bring-
ing the world to the brink of a nuclear war.

As is known the Soviet Government has. emphatically
protested against these flights and has brought the mat-

ter before the United Nations Security Council. Never-
theless, the United States, far from calling a halt to the
provocative flights of its aircraft, attempted to distract
the attention of world public opinion from the essence
of the question raised by the Soviet Union. It proposed
that an international inspection system to forestall a sud-
den attack should be established in the Arctic region over
which American planes are flying.

The Soviet Government has had occasion to point out
that this proposal of the United States does not in any
way reduce the threat to world peace represented by the
flights of American bombers loaded with atomic and
hydrogen weapons towards the frontiers of the Soviet
Union.

The shortest air route between the Soviet Union and
the United States is through the Arctic region. For this
reason it is of great strategic importance, and the flights
of American military aircraft with atom and hydrogen
bombs over that region are, undoubtedly, a grave threat
to peace. It is precisely for this reason that the United
States must put an end to such flights of American air-
craft towards the Soviet frontiers. Yet the Government
of the United States is stubbornly refusing to comply
with this just demand and to heed the voice of reason.

In addition, the Soviet Union's security is being jeop-
ardized by the flights of American aircraft not only across
the Arctic region, but also over those areas of Europe,
Africa and Asia where the United States maintains
an extensive network of air bases.

Under these conditions, the American proposal for an
Arctic inspection system cannot be of any value to the
security of the Soviet Union because, in the first place,
the United States, in proposing such a system, is not
even promising to end such flights altogether, but only
to reduce their number; secondly, this proposal concerns
only one stretch of the Soviet Union's frontier; and last-
ly, the system of inspection under the American proposal

409

is to cover a substantial portion of the territory of the
Soviet Union and not one inch of that of the United States
proper.

Consequently, the purpose behind the United States
proposal is to gain certain military and strategic advan-
tages for the United States at the expense of weakening
the security of the Soviet Union. It is obvious that no
self-respecting state can agree to such a proposal.

These proposals can only indicate that the United
States of America is persisting in its "policy of strength,"
for only a state banking on such policy can put forward
such proposals. But it is making a mistake, for to every
force there is always a counter-force. It is only natural,
therefore, that no state, and still less a state possess-
ing all the necessary means of defence, can accept pro-
posals which are advantageous to one side only, like those
which have been made by the United States.

In an effort to counter in one way or another the pop-
ular pressure for an end to the arms drive being car-
ried on by the Western Powers, the statesmen of the
United States, Britain and France often declare that they
are compelled to follow this policy because of a threat
to the West from the Soviet Union.

Yet, have any of these statesmen been able to adduce
even a single fact to indicate any activity on the part of
the U.S.S.R. which jeopardizes the security of any state?
No one has ever adduced such facts and, indeed, no one
can do so, for no such facts exist.

Definite efforts are now being made in the West to
justify the policy of speeding up war preparations, in-
cluding the installation of American atomic bases and
rocket launching sites on other people's territory, by
pointing to the Soviet Union's development of an inter-
continental missile. But it is well known that the United
States had begun to set up its military bases outside its
own territory long before modern rockets, and especially
intercontinental missiles, had been created.

410

It must be recalled in this connection that after the
end of the Second World War, the Soviet Union advanced
the proposal to withdraw all foreign troops from the ter-
ritories of other countries and to eliminate all foreign
bases set up on the territories of other states. The Gov-
ernments of the United States, Britain and France not
only flatly refused to accept that proposal of the Soviet
Union but also continued to set up more and more mil-
itary bases in the vicinity of our frontiers.

Could the Soviet Government be expected, under the
circumstances, not to display due concern for the securi-
ty of its own country and not to think of creating reli-
able means of ensuring that security? No, it could
not.

Yet even today, when the Soviet Union is in possession
of the intercontinental weapon, we are prepared to come
to an agreement to ban the use of outer space for mili-
tary purposes if the Western Powers, for their part, agree
to dismantle their military bases on foreign territories. It
is common knowledge that the Soviet Government has
proposed the inclusion of that question in the agenda of
a summit meeting. It is now up to the Western Powers,
and in the first place the United States.

In stepping up the arms race, the ruling circles of the
United States and the other Western Powers are demand-
ing ever new sacrifices from their peoples for the sake of
expanding war preparations. All this cannot but affect
the economic conditions of the working people, who are
forced to bear the heavy burden of military expenditures.

The militarization of the economy of the Western Pow-
ers has led to a serious disruption of the economy, to a
growth of unemployment in those countries and to dis-
tress for millions of people. The supporters of the "posi-
tions of strength" policy and the stepping up of the cold
war spare no pains to inculcate in the minds of
the working people that such a policy is in their own in-
terests because it is connected with a rise in military pro-

411

duction and therefore, so they allege, leads to greater em-
ployment in industry.

They go so far as to frighten the working class with
the assertion that if the cold war were to be terminated
and the need for an arms race ceased to exist, this would
lead to a drop in production, a growth in the army of un-
employed and a fall in the working people's living stand-
ards.

Are these arguments which are used by the opponents
of ending the cold war and the flunkeys of monopoly cap-
ital sound? No, these arguments are unsound. First and
foremost, they contradict the essence of human life. They
are profoundly anti-humanistic, because they are used to
convince man, whose function is to engage in creative
labour, that he can live only when creating the means of
his own destruction.

These arguments also fall to the ground when analyzed
from the scientific standpoint. Is it not true that the
possibility now exists for organizing on a large scale the
production of the means of consumption and the means
of production rather than the manufacture of means of
destruction? The market for this — both internal and ex-
ternal— is veritably limitless. If the United States, for
example, were to cut prices for consumer goods and raise
the working people's wages, the purchasing power of the
population would sharply increase and this would create
the conditions for expanding the production of the means
of consumption.

Is it not clear that if the United States were to follow
a policy of peaceful co-existence and business-like co-
operation, this would open up vast possibilities for de-
veloping the productive forces of the United States? Such
countries, for example, as India, People's China, Paki-
stan, Indonesia, Iran, the countries of the Arab East and
the Soviet Union could alone become vast markets con-
suming enormous quantities of American goods

412

This would lead to greater employment and consequent-
ly to higher living standards for the American people
and would at the same time help to realize the desire of
the peoples of other countries to develop and expand
their economy, raise their living standards and promote
their national culture.

Under the present "positions of strength" policy, the
Powers participating in NATO have spent a total of more
than $400,000 million for military purposes in the period
from 1950 to 1957. However, these vast military expendi-
tures have not helped them to evade the mounting dif-
ficulties in the economy which is clearly evident in the
United States, now undergoing an economic crisis, as the
Americans themselves admit.

Nor has this policy of the United States benefited the
countries which support the cold war policy and the arms
drive. Quite the contrary, by fettering themselves with
the "positions of strength" policy, these countries are
forced to shoulder unbearable military expenditures. Their
economy is being undermined and civilian production is
being curtailed— a fact which allows the American monop-
olies to reduce these countries to a position of ever great-
er dependence, in the economic as well as the political
sense.

All this shows that the real interests of all countries
are not served by the cold war policy, but by a policy of
peaceful co-existence, of developing mutually advantageous
trade and business-like co-operation.

Needless to say, all the peoples would heave a sigh of
relief if the threat of war were eliminated and people
everywhere could devote their efforts to creative labour,
to raising their living standards and developing their cul-
ture.

That is precisely what the interests of mankind demand.
Every day the peoples are realizing ever more clearly the
ruinous effects of the arms drive and the cold war policy,
and it may be said with confidence that the demands of

413

the peoples will triumph and they will compel their gov-
ernments to end the arms race.

It should be noted that even at the present time the
policy-makers of the Western Powers cannot fail to reckon
with these demands. That is why they pay lip service to
peace, although they systematically work to step up the
pace of preparations for a new war.

Socialist Countries Stand for Ending Arms Race,
for Eliminating Cold War

Comrades, the peoples represented by those taking part
in our conference know what war is. They were spared
neither by the First World War nor by the Second. In both
these wars the peoples of the Soviet Union, the Germans,
the Poles, the peoples of Czechoslovakia and other coun-
tries party to the Warsaw Treaty suffered the greatest
sacrifices. And we are justified in saying that there are
no other states on earth whose governments so insistently
and unflinchingly follow a policy of preventing the unleash-
ing of a new war as do the governments of the social-
ist states, expressing the cherished desires and vital inter-
ests of their peoples.

In our time war has ceased to be fatally inevitable. The
profoundly abnormal international tension which now pre-
vails can and must be overcome. Peace can and must be
preserved.

Like the other governments of the socialist countries,
the Soviet Government is far from believing that the pre-
vailing situation cannot be changed for the better. It will
be recalled that in the period of the Second World War,
relations of close co-operation existed between the Soviet
Union, the United States of America, Britain and the other
Powers of the anti-Hitler coalition. If this co-operation
gave way to relations of mistrust, estrangement and even
a certain hostility, that has occurred in spite of the wishes
of the Soviet Union.

414

Friendship with states having social and economic sys-
tem differing from that of the United States evidently
was not to the liking of the Government of the United
States, and not only to that Government. In the post-war
years, politicians have come to power in the United States
of America who have taken it into their heads that the
United States can succeed in tilting the balance of forces
in its favour and eliminating the socialist system in the
People's Democracies, a system established by the peoples
of these countries. iNot daring to attack the Soviet Union
directly, these politicians have concentrated their efforts
against the East European countries, as they call them,
trying to make the peoples of these countries swerve off
the road they have chosen and accept the way of life fa-
voured by certain circles in the United States of America.
It is obvious that such calculations are not the result of
sound reasoning or a correct evaluation of the situation
and correlation of forces in the international arena.

Having set before themselves the fantastic task of erad-
icating socialism all over the world, these politicians
would like to solve that problem in stages because they
lack the means even to dare to hope for more. At the same
time they continue to act against the world's first social-
ist state, the Soviet Union, pouring hundreds of millions
of dollars into subversive activities against the Soviet
Union.

Today the failure of the originators of the "positions of
strength" policy is patent. The socialist camp has become
even more united and powerful, while the United States
of America, in pursuing such a policy, has largely lost its
international prestige by assuming the role of leader of
the cold war and organizer of military blocs hostile to the
cause of peace.

If we turn to considerations of a military nature, it will
be found that the American leaders in that sphere have
also made considerable miscalculations. This is parties
larly evident since the launching into outer space of the

415

three Soviet artificial earth satellites, which have demon-
strated the high level of industrialization and develop-
ment of science and engineering in the Soviet Union. Far
be it from us, of course, to deny that the United States and
other countries with a high level of development in in-
dustry, science and technology are able to achieve similar
results.

We should like to hope that the leaders of the United
States of America, for their part, might take a more sober
view of things. A solution of the contradictions dividing
the states of the East and the West does not lie in an arms
race, but in negotiations between them. It is not sabre-
rattling but meetings between responsible statesmen
that will lead to a solution of controversial issues.

In the present circumstances, with the cold war out-
growths that have accumulated over the years making
themselves felt literally at every point, a daring search
and a concerted and determined effort are needed to se-
cure a turn in international relations which the peoples
desire, and to spare the world a war catastrophe.

It can hardly be disputed that only a conference of the
most authoritative and plenipotentiary representatives of
states can tackle this task. This is precisely why the So-
viet Union, upon consulting all the socialist countries,
made a proposal last December for a top-level East-West
conference.

The Soviet Government has done everything in its pow-
er to clear the way to a conference at the summit and to
create an atmosphere of confidence and business-like co-
operation. It is enough to mention the Soviet Union's re-
duction in its armed forces and its unilateral suspension
of all atomic and thermo-nuclear weapons tests. This con-
ference is also considering further steps to be taken by
the Warsaw Treaty countries towards relaxing internation-
al tension and safeguarding peace in Europe. We have
concrete deeds to back our good will for agreement and
mutual understanding.

416

The Soviet Union and the other socialist countries will
steadfastly and perseveringly continue to pursue a policy
aimed at easing international tension and ending the cold
war. Every day the peoples will increasingly support this
peace policy and duly appreciate it. We are confident that
through hard work we shall eventually bring about a sit-
uation in which the peoples of the states whose govern-
ments pursue a "positions of strength" policy and the
arms race will compel their governments to take the road
of peaceful co-existence.

The Soviet Union and the other Warsaw Treaty coun-
tries are prepared for a summit conference and have for-
warded to our partners proposals to this effect. The Minis-
ter of Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R. is holding prepara-
tory discussions to this end with the Ambassadors of the
United States, Great Britain and France in Moscow. But
we are finding it increasingly difficult to overcome the con-
viction that lying behind the talk of the Western leaders
about the need for careful preparations for a summit con-
ference is the unwillingness of the Western Powers to
talk business, although the governments of these Powers
must have as much ground for being concerned about
easing international tension and removing the rocket and
nuclear war danger as the countries of the socialist camp
have.

The questions we suggest for discussion at a summit
meeting are well known. They have been raised and made
urgent by life itself. Every one of these proposals, wheth-
er it deals with ending nuclear tests, the creation of a
zone free of atomic, hydrogen or rocket weapons in Eu-
rope, measures for the prevention of a surprise attack, the
conclusion of a non-aggression pact between the Warsaw
Treaty Organization and NATO, or anything else suggest-
ed for discussion, has the purpose of contributing to a re-
laxation of tension in international relations. At the same
time every one of them could be put into effect even today,
provided only that our partners at the talks are guided

417

by the same striving as we are; namely, to put an end to
the cold war and reduce international tension.

We cannot, however, fail to note that the present tac-
tics of the United States and the countries supporting it
boil down to an attempt to lull the vigilance of the peoples
by declarations and by talk about thorough preparations
for a summit conference and to bury the very idea for
ever. Nor can one fail to see that what lies behind the talk
of the need for careful preparations for a summit meeting
is, in point of fact, the intention of certain circles in the
West to go ahead with their "positions of strength" policy
in order to try to compel the Soviet Union and the other
Warsaw Treaty countries to accept the U.S. demands with-
out the least objection, something these circles openly
declare.

But who, indeed, can take seriously the calculation that
as a result of some careful preparations for a summit
conference the Soviet Union and the other Warsaw
Treaty countries will agree to an international conference
considering such issues as the situation in the East
European countries, designed to interfere in the internal
affairs of these countries in order to force a change in
the socialist system established by the peoples of these
countries?

Or take the question of German reunification, as treated
by the Western Powers. Can one consider as serious the
statements that Germany can be reunited, while ignoring the
existence of the two sovereign German states, the German
Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany,
and that this can be done without them, behind their backs
and in the interests of certain groups in one of these
states alone, the Federal Republic of Germany?

If the Western representatives, in pleading the need for
thorough preparations for the meeting have in mind to
compel the Soviet Union to agree to a discussion of such
questions, we must say openly that the time needed for
such "preparations" would be endless, for never, under no

418

circumstances, will the Soviet Union agree to such a so-
lution.

The Soviet Union has submitted very concrete proposals
for discussion at a summit meeting. These proposals have
been dictated by life itself. If the Western Powers are not
yet prepared to settle all these questions, it might be
possible to select some of them, to reach agreement on
them and thereby lay the foundation on which a solid
edifice of peace could then be built.

We consider that, in preparing for a summit meeting
and in preparing questions for discussion there, such
questions should be selected as could be resolved now, at
this stage. This can be successfully accomplished only if
countries with different internal systems, that is, capital-
ist countries and socialist countries, approach the matter
realistically, proceeding from the indisputable fact that at
present two world systems— capitalism and socialism-
exist on the globe and if they recognize the principle of
peaceful co-existence of the two systems and tackle ques-
tions that would promote this peaceful co-existence.

That is why the Soviet Union and the other socialist
countries propose that a summit meeting should consider
questions that in no way affect the foundations of the cap-
italist countries and at the same time do not prejudice the
socialist countries. This is the principal thing, and it is
precisely this approach that can make a summit meeting
successful.

We propose to the United States of America, Britain
and our other partners to try the way of partial disarma-
ment measures. We are by no means doing this because we
consider radical, all-embracing disarmament to be less
desirable. On the contrary, the Soviet Union is prepared
to come to an agreement on this even today. But the ex-
perience of years of long negotiation in the United Nations
shows that the Western Powers refuse to reach a radical
solution of the disarmament problem.

It appears that not the least of the fears of the Govern-

419

ments of the U.S.A. and other Western Powers is that
curtailment of military production would lead to an eco-
nomic recession in their countries. Our proposals for par-
tial disarmament measures, as a start, take these fears
into account, enabling the Western Powers to convert
their war industry to peaceful production gradually and
painlessly.

The Soviet Union has always considered that its sacred
duty to mankind is to bring about a ban on the means of
mass destruction— atomic and hydrogen weapons.

How can this problem be most speedily approached?
Since the Western Powers say that they cannot agree at
present to the complete prohibition of nuclear weapons
and their removal from national armaments, we suggest
that they take— as a beginning— merely the first step in
this direction, and halt these weapons tests, for the con-
tinuation of atomic and hydrogen bomb tests poisons the
atmosphere with radioactive fall-out and leads to the
development of even more powerful nuclear weapons
which are increasingly frightful in their consequences.

Considering that the Western Powers have turned the
question of control into the main stumbling-block in the
course of disarmament talks, the Soviet Union proposed
the organization of a system of control over the suspen-
sion of tests through the establishment of control posts
in the U.S.S.R., the U.S.A., Britain and the Pacific. We
agreed to this even though we knew that the existing na-
tional scientific institutions are themselves able to detect
all nuclear explosions, anywhere in the world, without
the aid of any international control system.

But this did not induce the Western Powers to agree
to a universal suspension of atomic and hydrogen weap-
ons tests. So far, all our proposals have met with a blank
wall of Western objections.

Guided by a desire to make a start on the universal
suspension of nuclear weapons tests and thereby take the
first step towards a complete ban on these weapons, the

420

Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. passed a decision on the
unilateral suspension of atomic and hydrogen weapons
tests by the Soviet Union and called on the other coun-
tries to follow suit.

It is now obvious that the Western Powers will not
respond to the initiative of the Soviet Union. Towards the
end of April the United States and Britain started an-
other series of atomic and hydrogen weapons tests. These
nuclear tests show that the ruling circles of the U.S.A.
and Britain are sabotaging the solution of the question of
an immediate, universal suspension of atomic and hydro-
gen weapons tests and thereby assume a heavy responsi-
bility for the continuation of the nuclear arms race.

To evade the cessation of nuclear weapons tests, the
Western Powers insist on preliminary work by experts on
the technical details of controlling the suspension of tests.

The Soviet Government holds, as it always has held,
that it is necessary to agree in principle on the suspen-
sion of nuclear tests first and then to take up the matter
of control. However, wishing to hasten agreement with
the Western Powers on the suspension of nuclear tests,
the Soviet Government has agreed to the assigning of
experts who would start work immediately, studying the
means of detecting possible violations of an agreement
on the suspension of nuclear weapons tests. We stressed,
however, that this work should be completed in a short
period, to be specified in advance.

These steps of the Soviet Government have cleared the
way fully for agreement on the immediate suspension of
tests of all types of nuclear weapons. All peoples agree in
demanding that the suspension of nuclear weapons tests
be the first item discussed at the summit, and they will
not forgive the Governments of the United States and
Britain should they impede the cessation of nuclear tests,
a problem tackled so vigorously by the Soviet Union.

Rejection of the use of atomic and hydrogen weapons
with which the Powers are armed would be of great im-

421

portance for easing international tension and ending the
arms race. That this measure is perfectly realistic is
obvious to all. It requires neither lengthy talks nor any
control or material expenditures. But such moral con-
demnation of nuclear arms would be of truly inestimable
value to the cause of peace, besides creating conditions
for further steps towards resolving the disarmament prob-
lem.

A moral pledge by states not to use atomic and hydro-
gen weapons would be especially significant today when
it is no longer possible to establish foolproof control over
the observance of an agreement banning nuclear weapons,
and when it is easy for either side to begin, should it so
desire, the secret manufacture of nuclear weapons.

We now have to reckon with the fact that the process
of nuclear materials manufacture is the same, whether for
military or peaceful purposes. The very same nuclear ma-
terials can be used both in peaceful branches of pro-
duction and for the manufacture of nuclear weapons. This
means that the manufacture of nuclear energy for peace-
ful purposes, which is becoming increasingly developed
and widespread, can be used, simultaneously, to secretly
stockpile explosive nuclear materials in circumvention of
control. And once enough materials have been stockpiled,
it would not be too difficult to conceal the designing and
manufacture of nuclear bombs and atomic rocket war-
heads. This can be done by any industrially developed
country,

Today, when nuclear arms have ceased to be the mo-
nopoly of one state, as was the case 13 years ago, it is
very, very dangerous to use these weapons of mass de-
struction without risking massive retaliation. Things
must be viewed realistically. Under the present circum-
stances, the way to eliminate the threat of atomic war is
moral condemnation of the use of atomic and hydrogen
weapons.

Anyone who seeks to evade agreement on renunciation

422

of the use of nuclear arms is hypocritical in stating that
it would possess no force but would remain an uncon-
trolled moral commitment.

Moral condemnation by the peoples is a great force
It will represent a means of rigid control and a contain-
ing factor against those planning to use nuclear weapons,
those barbaric weapons for the mass annihilation of people
and the destruction of material values. The experience of
the recent past confirms the significance and effectiveness
of international agreements imposing moral obligations
on states.

It is common knowledge that the Geneva Protocol of 1925,
banning chemical and bacteriological means of warfare,
played a positive role, preventing the use of these weap-
ons" of mass destruction during the Second World War.
The aggressors dared not use these weapons, morally con-
demned by an international treaty and by world public
opinion.

A ban on the use of atomic and hydrogen weapons would
be a good beginning. Later, when the relations between
states are developed and consolidated, when these relations
become relations of friendship, favourable conditions will
arise for broader control and greater international confi-
dence, and this will make it possible to exclude war alto-
gether as a means of settling disputed issues.

A summit meeting should also give the closest consid-
eration to the proposal of the Polish People's Republic
for the establishment in Europe of a zone free of atomic,
hydrogen and rocket weapons. The Soviet Union, like the
other members of the Warsaw Treaty Organization, does
not seek any military advantages in supporting this pro-
posal. It wishes only one thing— to achieve a relaxation of
tension in Central Europe and to reduce the likelihood of
atomic war in the area and, consequently, help eliminate
the threat of such a war in general.

Those who allege that only one side stands to gain from
the establishment of such a zone are chopping logic. They

423

are deliberately obscuring facts which run counter to their
contentions.

In what circumstances couid the establishment of an
atom-free zone — composed, as is proposed, of four coun-
tries: Poland, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Re-
public and the Federal Republic of Germany — be said to
give definite military advantages to the Soviet Union and
its Warsaw Treaty allies? Only if NATO's contribution
to the establishment of such a zone will be greater than
that of the Warsaw Treaty countries. In reality, this is
far from being the case.

Naturally, simple arithmetical calculations are inapplic-
able in comparing military and economic factors. But
some figures are indisputable.

A comparison of the territories of the states to make up
this zone shows that the combined territory of the Ger-
man Democratic Republic, Czechoslovakia and Poland is
more than twice that of the fourth proposed member of
the zone, West Germany. Moreover, the combined popula-
tion of the Warsaw Treaty countries in the zone is also
greater than the population of the sole NATO country
in it.

It is known that neither the German Democratic Repub-
lic, nor Czechoslovakia, nor Poland, nor the Federal Re-
public of Germany manufactures its own nuclear weapons.
What is more, the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany at one time assumed an international commit-
ment not to manufacture such weapons in the future. All
this shows that there are no grounds for supposing that
the establishment of a zone free of atomic, hydrogen and
rocket weapons would give any military advantages to the
Warsaw Treaty countries to the detriment of the interests
of the NATO countries.

If the Western Powers fear that following the establish-
ment of such a zone the Soviet Union would retain supe-
riority in conventional arms in this territory, one might
ask why they reject the Soviet proposals for reducing the

424

strength of foreign troops on the territory of Germany and
other European states.

To our mind, it would be scarcely correct to preclude in
advance the possibility that the establishment of a zone
free of nuclear and rocket weapons would be accompa-
nied by measures for the reduction and mutually accept-
able regulation of the strength of foreign troops now main-
tained on the territory of states which may form the pro-
posed zone.

The establishment of a zone free of nuclear and rocket
weapons would not only be of great international signifi-
cance, but would also go a long way towards ensuring the
security of the states which would belong to it. We find
it difficult, therefore, to understand the position of the
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, whose
attitude to the Polish proposal has been negative thus far.

The Soviet Government has already announced its readi-
ness to undertake to respect the status of the zone free of
nuclear and rocket weapons and to regard the territory of
the countries within it as excluded from the sphere of em-
ployment of nuclear and rocket weapons, if the Govern-
ments of the U.S.A., Britain and France do likewise.

The Soviet Government has recently made another con-
cession to the Western Powers by proposing the conclusion
of a broad international agreement on banning the use of
outer space for military purposes and closing down mil-
itary bases on foreign territories, and on international co-
operation in the study of outer space.

The rapid scientific and technical progress in the devel-
opment of rockets capable of reaching out into cosmic
space places a grave responsibility on the states. Their
duty is to channel progress in this field to peaceful uses,
so that intercontinental and all other rockets may be used
for peaceful research, for conquering the great expanses
of the universe and not for killing people.

The Soviet Union has proposed the establishment of a
United Nations agency on international co-operation in

425

the study of outer space with a view toward making the
new scientific discoveries serve the peaceful needs of man-
kind. The Soviet proposals, serving as they do the security
interests of all states in equal measure, make it possible
to provide a really solid foundation for international co-
operation. They are, at the same time, a major step to-
wards solving the problem of disarmament in general.

The United States approaches the question of outer space
from a different position. It limits its proposals to control
over intercontinental missiles, disregarding the question
of other rockets which may carry nuclear war-heads, and
also the question of overseas bases adapted to the launch-
ing of such rockets and to accommodating warplanes carry-
ing atom and hydrogen bombs.

One cannot fail to see that the United States, in limit-
ing its proposals to a ban on intercontinental ballistic mis-
siles, wants to safeguard itself against nuclear retaliation
through outer space in case of atomic war, at the same
time retaining its numerous military bases on foreign ter-
ritories which are intended for an attack on the Soviet
Union and the peaceable countries friendly to it.

It goes without saying that the Soviet Government can-
not agree to the jeopardizing of the security of the Soviet
Union and the countries friendly to it.

The task of ensuring the maximum security of all states
requires that a ban on the military use of outer space be
accompanied by measures for the closing down of military
bases on the territory of other states, primarily in Europe,
the Middle East and North Africa.

Discussion at the summit of other questions listed in
the well-known Soviet proposals would also be of great
significance for the relaxation of international tension.
However, the Western reaction to them cannot be regarded
so far as encouraging.

In their efforts to prevent the holding of a summit con-
ference, certain circles in the West would like to do some
bargaining, as it were, depicting the Soviet Union as hav-

426

ing some special interest in the questions submitted by the
Soviet Government for consideration at the summit. There-
fore, they argue, if we drive a hard bargain with the So-
vietUnion, in exchange for our consent to take part in the
meeting, we can wrest some advantages at the expense of
unilateral concessions by the socialist states.

The Western demands for a discussion of matters which
signify interference in the internal affairs of the socialist
states cannot be regarded in any way other than as prov-
ocations designed to stir up enmity between states.

It is time for the Governments of the Western Powers
to realize that the question of the system of government
of the People's Democracies, as well as that of any other
sovereign state, is not a matter for discussion at inter-
national conferences, for it has long been settled by the
peoples of these countries, who have firmly and unequivo-
cally embarked upon the course of building socialism.

Conclusion of Non- Aggression Pact

Between Member-Countries of Warsaw Treaty

and NATO Countries

Is Effective Step Towards Consolidation of Peace

Comrades, the efforts made by the Soviet Union and
other countries of the socialist camp to achieve a relaxa-
tion in international tension, to take the first steps in dis-
armament, to halt the tests of atomic and hydrogen weap-
ons, and to reduce armed forces and conventional arma-
ments have been warmly received, as you know, by all the
peoples of the world.

The Soviet Union has demonstrated by deeds its peace-
fulness and its sincere desire to provide conditions for a
firm and lasting peace. The Soviet Government, without
awaiting an international agreement on disarmament, has
unilaterally reduced its armed forces repeatedly in recent
years. In 1955, it reduced them by 640,000 men and in

427

1956-57 by another 1,200,000. At present, a further re-
duction, by 300,000, is nearing completion, with consider-
able cuts effected in our troops temporarily stationed
abroad under existing agreements — in the German Demo-
cratic Republic and Hungary.

Our country's armaments, military equipment and ex-
penditures for defence have been reduced accordingly.

The other member-countries of the Warsaw Treaty Or-
ganization reduced their armed forces by a total of over
337,000 in the course of 1955-57.

We all give due recognition to the great contribution
made to the maintenance of peace by the great Chinese
People's Republic, which recently decided to withdraw
the Chinese Volunteers from Korea. If the United States
following the example of People's China withdrew its
troops from South Korea and dismantled all its bases
there, this would unquestionably help to strengthen peace
in the Far East and to solve the Korean problem.

In discussing the convening of the Political Consulta-
tive Committee, the parties to the Warsaw Treaty agreed
on the questions to be considered by our meeting.

The Soviet Government considers it expedient for our
meeting to go on record for the further unilateral reduc-
tion of the armed forces of the Warsaw Treaty member-
countries and to call on the NATO countries to effect a
similar reduction.

Following consultations with the Government of the Ru-
manian People's Republic, the Soviet Government submits
to the meeting the question of withdrawing the Soviet
troops stationed on the territory of the Rumanian People's
Republic under the terms of the Warsaw Treaty, as an-
other measure designed to ease international tension.

The Soviet Union favours the withdrawal of all foreign
troops from the territories of other states and the closing
down of all military bases on foreign territories. Consid-
ering Western objections to the proposal for the complete
withdrawal of troops from foreign territories, the Soviet

428

Government has proposed to the Western Powers as a first
step to agree at least to a reduction of their troops on
these territories. But this proposal, too, is opposed by the
United States and its NATO partners.

Recognizing the importance that the withdrawal of for-
eign troops from European states would have for improv-
ing the international climate, the Soviet Government con-
siders it necessary, in the present situation, to make new
efforts, to do everything to induce, the Western Powers to
effect such a measure. The withdrawal of Soviet troops
from the Rumanian People's Republic conforms to this
aim. This step of the Soviet Union could represent a prac-
tical start toward withdrawal of foreign troops from the
territories of other states and clear the way for agreement
on this matter between all countries concerned.

The Soviet Union's peace policy in foreign affairs like
that of the other socialist states, meets growing support
of all the peoples of the world with each passing day.

In the opinion of the Soviet Government, the easing of
tension in the relations between those countries party to
the Warsaw Treaty and those countries belonging to
NATO would be of paramount importance under the pres-
ent circumstances. No one can deny that the friction and
mistrust engendered by membership in NATO and the
Warsaw Treaty of the 23 economically and militarily most
developed countries is having a deleterious effect on the
entire gamut of international relations.

The conclusion of a non-aggression pact between these
two groupings would help remove the existing strained
relations between them. After all, it is clear to everyone
that a new major war can only result from a conflict be-
tween the Warsaw Treaty Organization and NATO. If, on
the other hand, their military machines are not set into
motion, then such a war would not take place.

Very important also is the fact that a non-aggression
pledge is an effective antidote to aggression, since viola-
tion of it, as shown historically, leads to the isolation of

429

the aggressor internationally, facilitating the rallying of
forces opposed to aggression and, thereby, to the aggres-
sor's defeat.

The Soviet Government takes a positive view of the
pronouncements by some statesmen of the NATO countries
that a non-aggression pact could be useful and could serve
the interests of peace. In this connection, mention should
be made of the well-known statement made on the
subject by the Prime Minister of Britain, Mr. Macmillan.

The Soviet Government considers that it would be use-
ful for those taking part in the present meeting to propose
to the NATO countries the conclusion of a pact of non-
aggression between members of that bloc and the coun-
tries belonging to the Warsaw Treaty Organization.

In so doing, the NATO member-states could be in-
formed that the Warsaw Treaty Organization is willing at
any time to delegate representatives for an exchange of
opinion on questions arising from the proposal concern-
ing the conclusion of a non-aggression pact. Such an ex-
change of opinion between representatives of the Warsaw
Treaty Organization and the North Atlantic Alliance could
take place immediately.

Many Western statesmen cannot stomach the fact that
the socialist countries hold the initiative in international
affairs, that they are making proposals which are popular
with the people. One might ask why should our countries
not take such initiative if it accords with the vital inter-
ests of all peoples, including those of the member-states
of the Western Powers' military blocs, and why should we
worry if our peace initiative deprives of sleep those who
are interested in the arms race and are haunted by the
fear of losing their profits!

Quite the contrary, the negative attitude and impotent
rage of the opponents of our proposals reinforces the be-
lief that the governments of the socialist countries are act-
ing correctly and are on the right road. Every peace offer
by the Soviet Union, the Chinese People's Republic and

430

other socialist countries wins new friends for us abroad,
gives fresh vigour to the powerful peace movement.
° In our era international development is determined
by the progress and results of the competition between two
differing social systems— socialism and capitalism. The
greater the successes achieved by the working people of
the Soviet Union, the Chinese People's Republic and the
other socialist countries in expanding industry, improving
technology, raising the productivity of agriculture and
advancing material and cultural standards, the stronger
become the forces of peace, the more remote becomes the
danger of another war. We sincerely rejoice in the tre-
mendous successes of our friends, the peoples building so-
cialism.

It has been proved conclusively that socialism, in eman-
cipating labour, sets free the inexhaustible forces of the
broad masses, offers unbounded scope for their creative
endeavour, for a renaissance of science and culture, for
the realization of man's most daring plans. The practical
experience of the peoples bears out that socialism as a so-
cial system is superior to capitalism. It ensures the devel-
opment of the productive forces at a pace which is unpre-
cedented and unattainable for capitalism, ensures the steady
advance of the material and cultural standards of the
working people.

We say to the capitalist countries: Let us compete in
the manufacture of goods and articles which the peoples
need to make their life fuller and happier, let us compete
in advancing the living standards and well-being of the
peoples. And let the peoples themselves decide during this
competition for the benefit of man which road coincides
more with their interests.

The socialist states do not fear peaceful competition
with the capitalist countries, for they are deeply confident
of its outcome.

A firm guarantee of the national independence and sov-
ereignty of each socialist country is the close cohesion of

431

socialist states, united ' a single camp on the basis of the
principles of fraternal mutual assistance and proletarian
internationalism, full equality, respect for one another's
territorial integrity, national independence and sovereign-
ty, non-interference in one another's internal affairs. The
solidarity of the socialist states is not directed against any
other countries but serves the interests of all peoples by
containing the aggressive tendency of the imperialist cir-
cles and supporting the steadily growing forces of peace
and progress.

Comrades, the questions under discussion at our meet-
ing make it quite clear that we have assembled here not
to draft new plans for intensifying the arms race. Unlike
NATO and other aggressive military blocs of the Western
Powers, the Warsaw Treaty has been concluded exclusive-
ly for the purpose of safeguarding the security of our
countries and serves the interests of consolidating peace.
The states which are party to this treaty have never in-
tended, nor do they intend, to attack anyone.

At the same time, we must draw correct conclusions
from the fact that the NATO countries reply to our meas-
ures for reducing armed forces and arms expenditures, to
our proposals for easing international tension, by increas-
ing their forces and their military budgets and by stock-
piling armaments.

All this is being done to prevent a relaxation in inter-
national tension and the achievement of agreement be-
tween the states that would ensure their peaceful co-exist-
ence, thus impelling the Warsaw Treaty countries to take
part in the arms race and in the cold war in order to re-
tard our peaceful construction.

In taking new steps in this situation to end the cold
war, to reduce armed forces and to provide conditions for
peaceful co-existence, we must display a sober attitude and
a sense of responsibility for the security of our socialist
countries.
The governments of the countries which are party to

432

the Warsaw Treaty could not allow a situation in
which the vigilance of our peoples might be lulled and
conditions arise in which the advocates of "positions of
strength" policy might be tempted to use force against the
socialist countries. This means that in fighting consistently
for the easing of international tension we should in no
way forget the necessity for safeguarding the peaceful la-
bour of the peoples of the socialist countries against any
encroachment by aggressive forces.

Let the governments of the countries relying on "the
policy of strength" always bear in mind that war against
the socialist countries can end in only one way— in the
destruction of the aggressor.

The Soviet Government is confident that our conference
will successfully accomplish the task before it, that it will
make decisions that will promote peace and contribute to
an early settlement of the pressing international problems
which are troubling mankind.

MESSAGE

TO CENTRAL COMMITTEE

OF ITALIAN COMMUNIST PARTY

The Central Committee of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union sends the Central Committee and all the mem-
bers of your Party heartfelt fraternal congratulations on
your outstanding political and moral victory in the parlia-
mentary elections.

The glorious Italian Communist Party has stood a grim
test and has overcome the attacks of reaction and revision-
ism. It has again convincingly demonstrated that it has
the very deepest roots in the people— the working class,
the peasant masses, and the middle strata of the popula-
tion. Its brilliant success at the elections proves convinc-
ingly once again that all the talk by imperialist reaction
about a so-called "crisis of communism" is utterly false.
The victory of your Party in the elections and the weighty
achievements of the Socialist comrades are an important
phase in the development and consolidation of the demo-
cratic forces of the Italian people, in their struggle for
peace and social progress.

We wish the fraternal Italian Communist Party new
successes in its heroic struggle and tireless efforts for the
good of the working class and all the working people of
Italy.

On instructions of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U.
N. KHRUSHCHOV, First Secretary of the C.C., C.P.S.U.

Moscow, May 31, 1958
Pravda, June 1, 1958

SPEECH

AT 7th CONGRESS

OF BULGARIAN COMMUNIST PARTY

June 39 1958

Dear Comrades and Friends!

Allow me, on behalf of the Central Committee of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union and of our entire
Party, and on behalf of the Soviet people, to convey to the
7th Congress of the Bulgarian Communist Party, to the
Bulgarian Communists and all the Bulgarian people warm
fraternal greetings and good wishes for success in the
work of your congress. (Stormy, prolonged applause. All

rise.)

Our Party and the peoples of the Soviet Union, like all
the peoples of all the socialist countries, together with
you sincerely rejoice over the outstanding successes with
which the Bulgarian Communist Party has come to its 7th
Congress.

The Bulgarian people, under the leadership of their Com-
munist Party, have taken a big step forward in building
socialist society. The working people of the Soviet Union
whole-heartedly congratulate the Bulgarian people on the
historic victories that have been achieved. (Prolonged ap-
plause.)

The rapid development of the economy of the People's
Republic of Bulgaria, the steady improvement in material
well-being and the rise in the cultural level of the people,
strikingly shown by Comrade Zhivkov in the report of the
Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party,
provide one more convincing proof of the superiority of
socialism over capitalism. (Prolonged applause.)

435

The lackeys of the bourgeoisie love to boast about the
alleged advantages of the so-called system of free enter-
prise. If you listen to them, the picture you get is that
this system is the limit of man's dreams, that there is
nothing better, nor could there be. But why is it that they
cannot name a single capitalist country which, within such
a short period of time, has made such progress in the de-
velopment of its economy as the countries which have tak-
en the road of socialism? Take, for example, countries
that are neighbours of Bulgaria— Greece and Turkey. Sta-
tistics objectively reflect the fact that People's Bulgaria,
who has embarked on the road of socialist development,'
has achieved much greater successes in promoting her
economy and culture than her capitalist neighbours. (Ap-
plause.)

In the socialist countries industrial output as a whole
has increased more than 300 per cent as compared with the
pre-war level, whereas in the capitalist countries, not-
withstanding the frenzied arms race and other methods of
"stimulating business activity," it has risen less than 100
per cent.

We are firmly convinced that the time is not far distant
when the socialist countries will outstrip the most devel-
oped capitalist countries, not only as regards the. rate of
industrial production but also as regards the volume. (Ap-
plause.) Our conviction is based on hard facts. The Soviet
Union has already drawn considerably nearer to the most
powerful capitalist country, the United States, both as re-
gards total industrial output and per capita output. (Ap-
plause.) Our successes in the development of science and
technology are common knowledge. The Soviet Union now
has everything necessary for accomplishing, within a his-
torically brief period, the main economic task: to overtake
and surpass the most developed capitalist countries in the
output per head of population. (Prolonged applause.) The
Chinese People's Republic is now working to overtake and
surpass Britain within the next 15 years in the output of

436

steel and other major industrial products. (Applause.) The
Czechoslovak Republic has already outstripped Sweden,
France and West Germany as regards per capita steel
production, and France and Italy as regards production
of electric power. (Applause.)

With the emergence of socialism beyond the bounds of
a single country and with the formation of the worM so-
cialist camp, new and exceptionally important possibilities
have arisen for speeding up the pace of development of
the socialist economy. It is necessary to make use of these
possibilities in a rational and business-like way.

In this connection I should like to discuss some ques-
tions concerning the economic co-operation of the socialist
countries.

A meeting of representatives of the Communist and
Workers' parties of member-countries of the Council for
Economic Mutual Assistance was held in Moscow recent-
ly. The meeting was also attended by representatives of
the Communist Party of China, the Korean Party of La-
bour, the Working People's Party of Viet-Nam and the
Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party. The meeting ar-
rived at the unanimous conclusion that today, when the
economic ties between the socialist countries have grown
considerably in scope and strength, the further improve-
ment of the forms of economic co-operation and more
thorough specialization and co-operation of interconnected
branches of the national economy in the countries of the
socialist camp acquire major significance. Consistent im-
plementation of the measures for the further development
and deepening of the international division of labour of
the socialist countries, worked out by the meeting, will en-
sure the most expedient use of natural and economic re-
sources, higher labour productivity, and a further rise in
the standard of living of the people in each of our coun-
tries. The rational organization of economic co-operation
among the socialist countries will undoubtedly speed
up the development of national productive forces and

437

strengthen the economic might of the socialist camp as
a whole.

Like the November meetings of representatives of the
Communist and Workers' parties, the recent Moscow meet-
ing demonstrated the unbreakable unity of the peoples of
the socialist countries and their deep interest in continu-
ing to strengthen their commonwealth and to develop and
improve co-operation among the countries of the social-
ist camp. (Prolonged applause.)

Bourgeois ideologists assert that the formation and
strengthening of the socialist camp restricts the independ-
ence and national sovereignty of the countries that belong
to it. The entire practice of the development of co-opera-
tion among the socialist countries since the world social-
ist system was formed convincingly shows that it is pre-
cisely socialism that brings to the peoples genuine state
independence. The socialist camp is a voluntary union of
equal and sovereign states in which no one seeks or strives
for any special rights, privileges or advantages for him-
self. It goes without saying that each socialist country
independently decides the question of the forms of its co-
operation with the other socialist countries. There is not
and cannot be any compulsion in this matter.

But is it possible for the sake of the victory of social-
ism, to make full use of the rich possibilities possessed
by the socialist countries, if each of them acts alone and
"stews in its own juice," so to speak? Is it possible, in
the present international conditions, to ensure the reliable
defence of the gains of socialism, if the socialist countries
act in an un-coordinated way? Of course not.

It is only the unity of the socialist countries that en-
sures the maximum utilization of the advantages of the
world socialist system and enhances its strength and
might in the struggle to prevent a new war, and in the
economic competition with capitalism. Life has convinc-
ingly demonstrated that the strengthening of the unity
of the countries of the socialist camp, far from infringing

438

on the national interests of any of these countries, is a
reliable guarantee of their national independence and sov-
ereignty. (Stormy applause.)

The Communist and Workers' parties unanimously agree
that only the unity of the socialist countries and the
strengthening of all-round co-operation and fraternal mu-
tual assistance based on the great principles of proletar-
ian internationalism ensure the common advance of the
socialist economy and the raising of the formerly backward
countries to the level of the advanced ones, and make it
possible to abolish the existing inequality in economic and
cultural development which they have inherited from the
past.

The cohesion of the countries of the socialist camp is
ensured, above all, by the unity of the Communist and
Workers' parties— a unity based on the unshakable princi-
ples of Marxism-Leninism, tried and tested by the expe-
rience of history. By creatively applying the general prin-
ciples of Marxism-Leninism, each party works out the
most expedient concrete forms for embodying these prin-
ciples in the conditions of its own country, and thereby
makes its contribution to the theory and practice of social-
ist construction, to the development of Marxism-Leninism.
(Applause.)

Our great teacher, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, attached tre-
mendous importance to the revolutionary creative endeav-
our of the masses in producing, developing and perfect-
ing concrete forms and methods of struggle for the triumph
of the socialist revolution and the new social system. "Marx-
ism," wrote Lenin, "differs from all other socialist theo-
ries in the remarkable way it combines complete scientific
sobriety in the analysis of the objective state of affairs
and the objective course of evolution with the most definite
recognition of the importance of the revolutionary energy,
the revolutionary creative genius and the revolutionary
initiative of the masses. . . ." (Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 13,
pp. 21-22.)

439

The creative development of Marxist-Leninist theory is
the concern of the entire international communist move-
ment, of all the revolutionary parties of the working class.
(Applause.) It is well known, for example, what an im-
mense contribution to the theory and practice of socialist
revolution and the building of socialism is being made by
the Communist Party of China, which skilfully combines
the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete
practice of the revolution and socialist construction in its
own country. Also of great value for the development of
Marxist-Leninist theory is the creative elaboration of the
problems of the transition period by the Communist and
Workers' parties of the socialist countries of Europe and
Asia, and notably the experience of the Bulgarian Com-
munist Party in the reconstruction of agriculture on so-
cialist lines. (Applause.)

The forms of agricultural producers' co-operation worked
out and applied in the People's Republic of Bulgaria
are one of the examples of the correct combination of the
general laws of the socialist transformation of agricul-
ture with the concrete conditions and special features of
Bulgaria. (Applause.) The experience of your Party has
once again confirmed the fact that, whatever the special
national features, there is no way of attracting the broad
masses of the peasants to socialism other than that of the
Lenin's co-operative plan, which has been tried and tested
by life itself. (Prolonged applause.)

The fraternal Communist and Workers' parties greatly
value the importance of the decisions of the 20th Con-
gress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the
development of Marxism-Leninism. They have pointed out
that these decisions initiated a new stage in the interna-
tional communist movement and have facilitated its fur-
ther development.

The Communist and Workers' parties of the capitalist
countries, in working out forms and methods of working-
class struggle in the present situation for gaining politi-

440

cal power, are enriching the Leninist theory of the social-
ist revolution.

The Declaration of the Meeting of Representatives of
the Communist and Workers' Parties of the Socialist Coun-
tries rightly says: ''Creative application of the general
laws of socialist construction, tried and tested by experi-
ence, and the variety of forms and methods of building so-
cialism used in different countries, represent a collective
contribution to Marxist-Leninist theory." This collective
contribution contains a part from each Communist Party,
a part of the experience of all countries that are building
socialism. (Applause.)

The force and significance of the Declaration consist in
the fact that it summarizes the vast experience of socialist
construction in the U.S.S.R. and the People's Democracies,
the experience of the international working-class and com-
munist movement, the experience of the world move-
ment for national liberation. This historic document
further develops, in a creative way, the basic principles
of Marxism-Leninism as applied to the conditions of our
era.

In speaking of the creative development of the theory
of Marxism-Leninism in present-day conditions, we can-
not remain silent about the assertions— assertions which
are wrong in principle — contained in the draft programme
of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. This draft
alleges that "in recent decades Marxist thought has lagged
behind the development of contemporary society" and
that as a result of this "many vacuums have arisen in the
further scientific, Marxist elucidation of contemporary so-
cial problems, and particularly in the elucidation of the
laws and contradictions of the period of transition from
capitalism to socialism."

How is it possible to assert that in recent decades the
development of Marxist-Leninist thought, particularly in
elaborating the laws governing the transition period, has
lagged behind, when it is precisely during these years

441

that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the en-
tire international communist movement have introduced
so much that is new in Marxist-Leninist theory!

During these years socialism was built in the Soviet
Union for the first time in the history of mankind. (Stormy
applause.) In a number of countries in Europe and Asia
the revolutionary transfer of power into the hands of the
working class was carried out under the guidance of the
Communist parties and a new form of the dictatorship of
the proletariat — people's democracy — has arisen and devel-
oped. Socialism has emerged beyond the bounds of a sin-
gle country and has become a world system. The Commu-
nist Party of China and the other fraternal parties of the
People's Democracies have carried out on a large scale
the transformation of capitalist industry and trade and
have found specific forms for applying Lenin's co-opera-
tive plan. The Patriotic and National Front headed by the
Marxist-Leninist parties, a form of uniting the working
masses to fight for socialism, has developed in all the
People's Democracies.

Isn't it clear that the assertions about the so-called 'Vac-
uums" in the development of Marxist-Leninist theory are
contrary to reality and, in our opinion, show that the Yugo-
slav leaders are ignoring the practice of socialist con-
struction in other countries and the experience of the fra-
ternal Communist and Workers' parties?

Attempts have been made in the draft programme of the
League of Communists of Yugoslavia and in speeches by
Yugoslav leaders at the 7th Congress of the League to ac-
cuse other Communist parties of the socialist countries of
"practicism."

What the Yugoslav comrades seem to mean by "practi-
cism" is that the Communist and Workers' parties of the
socialist countries are concentrating their main efforts on
working out and applying practical measures which ensure
the development of the economy and culture and an im-
provement in the people's standards of living. We main-

442

tain that such "practicism" is in keeping with the funda-
mental interests of the masses, with the interests of social-
ism. The masses of the working people judge of the ad-
vantages of the socialist system and its superiority over
the capitalist system first and foremost by such matters
as who wields political power, who owns the means of pro-
duction; they judge by the results of economic develop-
ment, by the successes of science and technology, by the
advance in the cultural and material standards of the
working people in the socialist countries. (Stormy ap-
plause.) It is precisely the elaboration of the questions of
the theory and practice of building socialism and com-
munism which, in our opinion, constitutes a genuinely
creative development of Marxism-Leninism.

We Communists attach great importance to revolution-
ary theory and we are achieving all our successes pre-
cisely because we are always guided by Marxist-Leninist
teaching. The theory of Marxism-Leninism is our compass,
our guiding star. The strength of Marxism-Leninism lies
in its unbreakable bonds with life, with the processes of
social development. (Applause.)

It is well known that socialism appeals to the working
people even if they do not have a complete grasp of the
theory of scientific socialism. The working people want to
get rid of capitalism and of its incurable evils and vices.
They are looking for a way out of the hopelessness of
capitalism, and only when a revolutionary party, armed
with the scientific theory of communism, organizes the
workers, peasants and intelligentsia in the right way
and leads them to fight for the building of a new life — only
then does Marxist-Leninist theory become comprehensible
and accessible to the broadest mass of the working
people.

In drawing the working masses into revolutionary strug-
gle and in concentrating their energies on the accomplish-
ment of the concrete tasks of transforming society, a
Marxist party thereby creates conditions in which the

443

workers and peasants are able, not only to grasp with
their minds, but also to learn from their own experience
the correctness and vitality of the victorious teaching of
Marxism-Leninism. The further development of the theoret-
ical principles proceeds on the basis of the practice of the
revolutionary struggle and socialist construction.

The working class of Russia, in alliance with the work-
ing peasantry and under the leadership of the Communist
Party, which creatively applied and developed Marxist
theory, took power into its own hands in October 1917, in
order to refashion the economy and the entire life of the
country along socialist lines.

The great Lenin, in the very first years of Soviet rule,
working out the plans for the building of socialism, set the
paramount task of developing heavy industry — the corner-
stone for promoting the advance of all branches of the na-
tional economy. A concrete plan for our country's electri-
fication was worked out under the guidance of Lenin, who
called this plan the "second programme of the Party."
Doesn't this show that Lenin examined questions of the
theory and practice of the building of socialism in their
inseparable unity?

After the working class takes power, the socialist state
has to tackle many questions of economic and cultural
development. The theory of Marxism-Leninism is embodied
and further developed in the course of building social-
ism.

In the 40 years the Soviet state has been in existence
our Party has done an immense job of work, directing the
creative efforts of the Soviet people towards the building
of socialist society.

Take, for example, some of the questions which the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union has tackled recently.
The Party has done a great job in reorganizing the man-
agement of industry and construction, which is having a
tremendous economic effect. Now it can be asked: ''Is this
a theoretical or a practical question?" It is a question

444

which has both tremendous practical and tremendous
theoretical significance.

Our Party has carried out a number of important meas-
ures in agriculture, which have resulted in the opening up
of tremendous reserves and possibilities in our country.
Agriculture in the Soviet Union is now making rapid prog-
ress. At the beginning of 1955, a six-year programme for
the development of livestock farming was worked out. As
a result of implementing the measures worked out by our
Party on the basis of the Marxist-Leninist principles of
socialist economic management, and of the profound un-
derstanding by the masses of the necessity for these meas-
ures, the six-year plan for the production of milk and
dairy produce has been fulfilled ahead of schedule, in three
years. (Applause.)

A year ago leading collective and state farms of the So-
viet Union, supported by the Central Committee of the
Party, put forward the task of catching up with, and sur-
passing, the United States in the per capita production of
meat, milk and butter within the next few years. We are
sure that this task will be successfully accomplished.
(Applause.)

Are these practical or theoretical questions? We con-
sider that they are first of all practical questions. But if
the national economy of a socialist country is forging
ahead, if social wealth is increasing every year, if the la-
bour of the people is being better remunerated and if the
well-being of the working people is improving, this means
that the positions of socialism are growing stronger, that
the principles of Marxist-Leninist theory are being real-
ized. As you see, these questions are major theoretical ques-
tions. (Applause.)

On the initiative of the Central Committee of the
C.P.S.U., a law was adopted recently on the further devel-
opment of the collective-farm system and the reorganiza-
tion of the machine and tractor stations. Now machines
are sold directly to the collective farms, and the machine

445

and tractor stations have been reorganized into mainte-
nance and repair stations. The spring field work carried out
on the collective farms has demonstrated that this measure
has been fully justified. The tractors and other agricultur-
al machines are being used on the collective farms, not
worse, but better than in the machine and tractor stations.
Now, is this only a practical question or only a theoreti-
cal one? It is a question of both the theory and practice of
the building of socialism. ("Hear! Hear!" Applause.)

The May Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee of
the C.P.S.U. adopted a big programme for the develop-
ment of the chemical industry of the Soviet Union. Fulfil-
ment of this programme will ensure further technical prog-
ress in many branches of the national economy of our
country and will make it possible to accomplish more
quickly the task of increasing the production of consumer
goods.

At first glance all these are strictly practical questions
but at the same time they are also theoretical. Here we
have two sides of a single whole: theory and practice. By
our achievements in developing industry, farming and cul-
ture, we are demonstrating in a striking way the superior-
ity of our theoretical thought, the strength and viability
of Marxist-Leninist theory, on the basis of which socialist
society is being built. By applying this theory in practice,
by developing the socialist economy, by blazing new trails
into the future, we affirm and develop revolutionary theory,
enriching it with the experience of the millions. (Stormy,
prolonged applause.)

Every practical question of the building of socialism is
at the same time also a theoretical question, directly re-
lated to the creative development of Marxism-Leninism.
The one cannot be separated from the other.

Theory without practice is sterile. Sometimes, as you
know, an orchard blossoms and a man rejoices when he
looks at the blossoming trees. He expects that in the au-
tumn the orchard will yield an abundant crop of fruit and

446

reward his labour. But blossom time passes and the man
sees that after the blossoms have fallen off no ovary has
been formed. So there will be no fruit, and this is a great
disappointment. The man feels that his high hopes and ex-
pectations have been deceived. When the orchard blos-
somed and was full of fragrance, he rejoiced and expected
plenty of fruit. But the orchard didn't provide him with
that fruit and the work he had put in turned out to have
been in vain. The orchard which the man had cultivated
didn't reward him for his efforts.

People are also equally badly disappointed in theoreti-
cians who are fruitless. (Laughter.) Listening to the flow-
ery speeches and to the reasoning of certain theoretical
phrase-mongers, people are sometimes enraptured and be-
gin to believe the high-sounding phrases of such men. But
then they see that in practice nothing comes of the beau-
tiful words. (Animation. Applause.) The beautiful words
remain empty promises, without any connection with life.
And when people see that the grandiloquent phrases of
such "theoreticians" are blossoms without fruit, are empty
prattle, are sterile, they turn away from such "theoreti-
cians" and from their "theories." ("Hear! Hear!" Prolonged
applause.)

The revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism has great
and all-conquering power precisely because it is insepa-
rably bound up with life, with the processes of social de-
velopment, and undergoes its historic test in life itself.
(Applause.)

Practice that is not illumined by an advanced revolu-
tionary theory is doomed to grope in the dark. Marxist-
Leninist theory lights up for the working class, the work-
ing people, the ways to the solution of practical problems
in building socialism and communism. (Applause.) But
theory alone, without practice, is dead and barren. Lenin,
in ridiculing people divorced from life and steeped in ab-
stract theoretical arguments, said: "We are of the opinion
that the practice of the mass working-class movement is

447

in no way less important than theory and that only this
practice can subject our principles to a serious test. 'Theo-
ry, my friend, is grey, but green is the eternal tree of life!' '
(Applause.) (Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 20, pp. 495-96.)

Theoretical propositions which seemed infallible were
repeatedly put forward in the history of human society,
but they did not stem from life itself and were not con-
firmed by practice. Such theoretical postulate soon died,
without being of any benefit to mankind.

The vitality of Marxist-Leninist theory lies in that, hav-
ing arisen in the course of the struggle of the working
class, it develops in inseparable unity with practice, furn-
ishing mankind with answers to the most urgent ques-
tions. The correctness of the Marxist-Leninist theoretical
propositions is confirmed and proved by the practice of
the struggle to build communist society. It is confirmed by
the wealth of experience of our Party and all the fraternal
parties of the socialist countries. It is confirmed by the
experience of the Communist parties in the capitalist coun-
tries which, guided by revolutionary theory, are leading
the struggle of the working class and of all working peo-
ple for liberation from capitalist slavery, for the building
of a socialist society.

Communism is not an abstract philosophical concept.
It has a definite content: the need to abolish the exploiting
classes and the exploitation of man by man, to establish a
social system in which all the material and spiritual val-
ues created are social property and the people who create
these values dispose of them themselves at their own dis-
cretion and enjoy all the fruits of their labour, working ac-
cording to their abilities and receiving according to their
needs.

Communism is the radiant future,. and mankind is striv-
ing for it. (Stormy applause.)

Some "theoreticians" try in every way to belittle the
practical activities of the Communist and Workers' par-
ties in building socialism, scornfully dubbing them "prac-

448

ticism," but they themselves do not want to analyze, either
from the standpoint of theory or of practice, the question
of why they themselves are getting hand-outs from the im-
perialist countries. (Animation. "Hear! Hear!" Stormy ap-
plause.)

It is clear, however, to every conscious working man
that the advance of the socialist economy cannot be pro-
moted by that method. A fine method, indeed, to promote
socialism, to develop Marxist-Leninist theory!

While such ill-starred theoreticians are sometimes not
aware of what harm can be done to the cause of the work-
ing class by the "theories" they put forward, the imperial-
ist circles know very well what they want and are doing
everything in their power to support and encourage the
things that help them in the struggle against commu-
nism.

I don't want to offend anyone, but at the same time I
cannot help asking a question which is worrying honest
Communists everywhere. Why do the imperialist leaders,
who seek to wipe the socialist states from the face of the
earth and to crush the communist movement, at the same
time finance one of the socialist countries, give it credits
on easy terms and hand-outs? (Laughter, applause.) No
one will believe that there are two socialisms in the world:
one that is viciously hated by world reaction, and another
acceptable to the imperialists, to which they render assist-
ance and support. (Laughter, applause.)

Everyone knows that the imperialists have never given
anyone money for nothing, simply because they like his
"beautiful eyes." They invest their capital only in enter-
prises from which they hope to get good profits. (Anima-
tion, applause.)

If the imperialists agree to render "aid" to a socialist
state they do so, of course, not in order to strengthen
it. The monopoly circles of the United States can by no
means be suspected of being interested in strengthening
socialism and developing Marxist-Leninist theory. (Laugh-

449

ier, applause.) Representatives of this particular country
allege that we are deviating from Marxism-Leninism,
but claim that they themselves are taking a correct
stand. We get quite a curious situation— the im-
perialists want to "develop" Marxism-Leninism through
this country. (Laughter.) It is appropriate to recall. Be-
bel's apt words: "If the enemy praises you, think what
stupid thing you have done." (Laughter. Prolonged ap-
plause.)

While the imperialists are uniting their efforts in their
attacks on socialism, on the working class, some leaders
who call themselves fighters for socialism are trying to
weaken the determination of the working class in the
struggle against capitalism, to weaken the vanguard^ of
the working class, the Communist and Workers' parties,
to blunt their vigilance, to weaken the unity of the social-
ist countries.

With such "allies," the aggressive circles of the bour-
geoisie may really cherish certain hopes and rejoice that
their attempts to undermine the socialist states from with-
in may prove successful But I must tell you in confidence
that these illusory hopes of the imperialists are also doomed
to failure, and the capital invested in this "business"
will be wasted, as has happened every time the imperial-
ists have tried to base their calculations on a weakening
of the unity of the Communist and Workers' parties.
(Stormy, prolonged applause. "Hear! Hear!" Delegates and
guests rise and scan: "C.P.S.U.!")

The Communist parties safeguard and preserve the unity
of their ranks like the apple of their eye. They wage an
irreconcilable struggle against revisionism and dogma-
tism. In this struggle the main fire of the Communist par-
ties is, naturally, directed against the revisionists, as
scouts of the imperialist camp. The ancient legend of the
Trojan horse is widely known. When its enemies could
not take the city of Troy by siege and storm, they "pre-
sented" a wooden horse to the Trojans, in which they con-

450

cealed their own men so that they could open the city
gates at night.

Modern revisionism is a kind of Trojan horse. ("Hear!
Hear!" Applause.) The revisionists are trying to undermine
the revolutionary parties from within, to undermine their
unity, to sow disorder and confusion in Marxist-Leninist
ideology. (Cries of "They will fail!" Applause.)

Comrades, the Communist and Workers' parties in their
historic Declaration unanimously and sharply condemned
revisionism, when they said that under present conditions
it is the main danger in the international communist move-
ment. Revisionism is Right-wing opportunism, a mani-
festation of bourgeois ideology which paralyzes the revo-
lutionary energy of the working class and demands the
preservation or the restoration of capitalism. The Declara-
tion most correctly stresses that "the existence of bour-
geois influence is an internal source of revisionism, while
surrender to imperialist pressure is its external source."

The Communists of all countries have warmly endorsed
the Declaration adopted by the meeting of the fraternal
parties of the socialist countries and have acknowledged
it to be an all-important programme document of the in-
ternational communist movement giving a profound Marx-
ist-Leninist analysis of the basic objective laws of social
development in the present epoch and defining the tasks of
the world communist movement with exceptional clarity.

Of all the Communist and Workers' parties, only one,
the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, announced its
disagreement with the Declaration and thereby set itself
up against all the Marxist-Leninist parties of the world.
This position of the Yugoslav leaders is most clearly ex-
pressed in the draft programme of the League of Com-
munists of Yugoslavia and in the work of the League's 7th
Congress. All the Communist and Workers' parties have
shown complete unanimity in resolutely condemning the
revisionist postulates contrary to Marxism-Leninism con-

451

tained in the League's programme and the wrong attitude
of the Yugoslav leaders.

In this connection, allow me, Comrades Delegates, to ex-
press certain views regarding the relations between the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the League of
Communists of Yugoslavia. I consider it desirable to ex-
press these views at your congress, because they not only
concern the relations between the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union and the League of Communists of Yugosla-
via, but they also affect the relations of all the fraternal
parties with the League of Communists of Yugoslavia.

As I have already pointed out, the Declaration of the
fraternal parties expressed their common viewpoint and
defined, on the basis of Marxist-Leninist principles, their
common views on the major questions of our time.

Marx, Engels and Lenin always attached primary im-
portance to the struggle for the purity of the ideological
principles of scientific communism. They were irreconcil-
able to each and every attempt to deprive the militant
theory of the working class of its revolutionary soul. They
have taught us that the theory of scientific communism
is the chief ideological weapon of the working class in its
struggle for its emancipation and for the transformation
of society on communist lines. They have taught us that
without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary
movement.

We all know what a tremendous struggle Lenin waged
against international revisionism and against the oppor-
tunism of Bernstein, Kautsky and their like, in upholding
revolutionary creative Marxism. In this irreconcilable
ideological struggle the Marxist-Leninist parties of the
working class, which have now become a mighty organiz-
ing and inspiring force of the international working-class
movement, have grown, have been strengthened and have
become steeled.

True to the behests of our teachers and leaders, the
Communist and Workers' parties are vigilantly guarding

452

the purity of Marxist-Leninist principles and are very sen-
sitive to any distortions of these principles and deviations
from them. The Marxist-Leninist parties consistently and
resolutely oppose those who seek to weaken the unity of
the fraternal Communist parties, to undermine the inter-
national unity of the working class of all countries, to dis-
organize their revolutionary struggle. Those who call
themselves Marxist-Leninists but who in practice, whether
they want to or not, play the part of agents of the class
enemy in the working-class movement are particularly
dangerous to the revolutionary struggle. The Communist
and Workers' parties are therefore very particular about
questions of theory and are irreconcilable with regard to
any attempts to revise Marxism-Leninism. (Applause.)

The relations of our parties with the League of Commu-
nists of Yugoslavia have their history. Some important
moments in this history should be recalled at the present
time.

You know that prior to 1948, good relations had existed
between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union — relations formed
in the joint struggle against the fascist invaders dur-
ing the Second World War and the first post-war years.
In September 1947, when imperialist reaction began in-
tensive attacks against the socialist countries, the Com-
munist Parties of the Soviet Union and the European
People's Democracies and also certain Communist parties
in capitalist countries of Europe established the Informa-
tion Bureau of Communist and Workers' Parties (the
Informburo), whose working bodies were in the initial pe-
riod in Belgrade.

Looking back, it should be said that at a definite stage
the Information Bureau played a positive part in the his-
tory of the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist movement, in
the consolidation of the forces of the Communist and Work-
ers' parties on the basis of the principles of proletarian
internationalism and in the struggle for lasting peace,
democracy and socialism. (Prolonged applause.)

453

The Communist Party of Yugoslavia, together with the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union and a number of
other fraternal parties, was one of the organizers of the
Information Bureau and was an energetic participant in
its activities during the initial period. That is how mat-
ters stood prior to 1948. Then came the worsening of re-
lations between the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and
the other fraternal parties.

In 1948, a meeting of the Information Bureau adopted
a resolution on "The Situation in the Communist Party
of Yugoslavia," which contained just criticism of the ac-
tivities of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia on a num-
ber of questions of principle. This resolution was correct
in the main and corresponded to the interests of the rev-
olutionary movement. Subsequently, in the period from
1949 to 1953, a conflict arose between the Communist
Party of Yugoslavia and the other fraternal parties, when
in the course of the struggle mistakes were made and one
thing piled up on another, which did harm to our com-
mon cause.

With full awareness of its responsibility to our countries
and peoples, to the international communist movement,
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union took the initia-
tive in order to end this conflict, to achieve a normaliza-
tion of relations between our countries, to establish contact
and co-operation between the Communist Party of the So-
viet Union and the League of Communists of Yugoslavia
on a Marxist-Leninist basis. With this aim in view, talks
were held on our initiative in May and June 1955 between
representatives of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia and
these talks ended in the signing of the Belgrade Declara-
tion. It is very important to note that during the talks in
Belgrade, Comrade Tito was in favour of not raking up
the past, of starting our relations on a new basis. We read-
ily agreed to this and for our part did everything possible
to strengthen friendly relations. In so doing we were aware
that there remained ideological differences between our par-

454

ties on a number of important questions. For our part, we
showed a great deal of restraint and patience in order to
achieve a unity of views on the basis of principle, on the
basis of Marxism-Leninism.

Life has shown, however, that the burden of the past
has weighed too heavily on the Yugoslav leaders and they
have proved incapable of abandoning their wrong posi-
tions and firmly adopting the positions of Marxism-Lenin-
ism. The Yugoslav leaders, even after relations had been
normalized continued to make anti-Soviet statements and
made attacks on the socialist camp and the fraternal Com-
munist parties. The Yugoslav leaders did particularly great
harm to the cause of socialism by their public pronounce-
ments and their actions during the Hungarian events.
During the counter-revolutionary putsch in Budapest, the
Yugoslav Embassy, in effect, became a centre for those
who had started the struggle against the people's demo-
cratic system in Hungary, a refuge for the treacherous and
capitulator Nagy-Losonczy group. Remember the unpre-
cedented speech made by Comrade Tito in Pulj, in which
he took the rebels in Hungary under his protection, while
describing the fraternal assistance of the U.S.S.R. to the
Hungarian people as "Soviet intervention" — a speech
which contained direct calls to certain forces in other
socialist countries to follow the so-called "Yugoslav road."

We know very well what that road is, comrades. Let him
who wants to, follow that road. But parties which really
adhere to Marxism-Leninism will not follow it. (Applause.)
Our socialist countries, with the compass of Marxism-
Leninism, are firmly following the road to communism.
(Prolonged applause.)

In view of this attitude on the part of the Yugoslav lead-
ers we have been compelled to come out with open criti-
cism of their views and actions. Our position has been
fully supported by all the Communist and Workers' par-
ties. Thus it is not the fraternal parties, standing as they
do on Marxist-Leninist positions of principle, but the

455

Yugoslav leaders, who by their splitting activities against
the socialist countries and the fraternal parties have iso-
lated Yugoslavia and the League of Communists of Yugo-
slavia from the socialist countries and the international
communist movement.

Subsequently, on the initiative of the Yugoslav leaders
the well-known meeting of delegations of the Soviet Union
and Yugoslavia took place in Bucharest in August 1957.
During that meeting we frankly outlined to the Yugoslav
leaders our views concerning the policy of the League of
Communists of Yugoslavia, both on the Hungarian ques-
tion and on other questions. As a result of the talks, accord
was reached on the main problems of the present interna-
tional situation, although it was recognized that there
were certain differences between us on ideological ques-
tions.

During the meeting in Bucharest we hoped to find a
common language and to pave the way for further friendly
co-operation. At the same time we frankly told the Yugo-
slav leaders that if they continued to make attacks on the
countries of the socialist camp and fraternal parties, not
a single one of those attacks would remain unanswered
by us. I say this with all responsibility before the fra-
ternal Communist Party of Bulgaria, which we respect
for its courage and devotion to the great ideas of Marx-
ism-Leninism. (Stormy, prolonged applause.)

At the Bucharest meeting it was agreed that a delega-
tion of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia would take
part in the planned meeting of the fraternal parties of the
socialist countries and in drafting a declaration of that
meeting. Subsequent events showed, however, that the
Yugoslav leaders retreated from the positions agreed upon.
They refused to sign the Declaration of the Communist
and Workers' Parties of the Socialist Countries, and de-
cided to come out with their own platform, the draft pro-
gramme of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, which
is opposed to the common views of the Marxist-Leninist

456

parties and which claims to be a programme document for
the international communist and working-class movement.

The programme of the League of Communists of Yugo-
slavia is, of course, an internal affair of the Yugoslav Com-
munists. But since the draft of that programme contains
tendentious and insulting appraisals of other parties and
socialist countries, and revises the foundations of the rev-
olutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism, our Party consid-
ered it its direct duty to criticize the anti-Marxist propo-
sitions of that document. The position of our Party— a po-
sition based on principle and set out in the letters of the
Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. and in our Party press
— has been unanimously supported and approved by all
the Communist and Workers' parties.

Rejecting the comradely criticism, based on principle,
from the fraternal parties, the Yugoslav leaders have again
found themselves in isolation, continuing stubbornly to
uphold their erroneous anti-Marxist views. Instead of se-
riously analyzing the reasons that have placed the League
of Communists of Yugoslavia in a difficult position, the
Yugoslav leaders are trying to accuse the fraternal parties
of not being objective with regard to them and of inter-
fering in the internal affairs of the League of Communists
of Yugoslavia. This is indeed a case of putting the blame
on someone else! (Animation.)

Some Yugoslav comrades are trying to find differences
in the assessment of their mistakes by individual Com-
munist and Workers' parties. They attack the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union and they would like in some
way to single out the Communist Party of China, claim-
ing that it criticizes their mistakes in some special man-
ner. But attempts to find different shades in the criticism
of present-day revisionism by the fraternal parties are
vain. All the fraternal parties are at one on this matter. We
consider that the Chinese comrades and also the other fra-
ternal parties are rightly and profoundly criticizing the
revisionist propositions of the draft programme of the

457

League of Communists of Yugoslavia and are consistently
upholding the principles of Marxism-Leninism. We fully
agree with this criticism based on principle. The forces of
socialism and the unity of the Communist and Workers*
parties can grow stronger only in the struggle against
revisionism, in the struggle for the purity of Marxist-
Leninist theory. (Prolonged applause.)

The weekly journal Komunisl, organ of the League of
Communists of Yugoslavia, the other day published an
article on the third anniversary of the signing of the Bel-
grade Declaration. It may seem at first glance that the
article is written in calm tones and aims at easing tension
that has arisen in the League's relations with the other fra-
ternal parties. But in fact this article is utterly wrong and
tries to justify the erroneous position of the Yugoslav lead-
ers. Thus, for example, the article contains an assertion
that the struggle for peace is, so it claims, the chief con-
tent of the struggle for socialism. One cannot agree with
such an assertion.

It is an indisputable fact that those who fight for so-
cialism consistently fight for the cause of peace. But peace
is also upheld by many personalities who do not sup
port the principles of socialism. Even some Conserva-
tives, members of the clergy and various bourgeois public
and political leaders fight for peace. Of course, we join
forces with them in the struggle for peace. Thus, people
and organizations of different views and political convic-
tions can and do unite in the struggle for peace.

Matters, however, are altogether different with regard
to the struggle for the victory of socialism. Here one can-
not count on pooling the efforts of the working class and
capitalists, of Communist parties and bourgeois parties.
The struggle for the victory of socialism demands unity
of views and unity of action by the parties of the working
class which adhere to Marxism-Leninism. It demands con-
sistent adherence to the principles of proletarian interna-
ls

tionalism and the fraternal mutual assistance of the peo-
ples building socialism. (Applause.)

We have adhered, and continue to adhere to the view
that it is necessary to strengthen in every way co-opera-
tion with all states in the struggle for peace and interna-
tional security. We want to maintain such relations with
the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia as well. But as
Communists, we would like to have more: we would like to
reach an understanding and co-operation on Party lines.
The Yugoslav Communists have rich revolutionary exper-
ience and have done great service in the struggle against
our common class enemies. The working class and the
entire working people of Yugoslavia made a notable con-
tribution to the struggle against fascism in the Second
World War. Of course, if co-operation on Party lines is not
achieved, we shall maintain and develop normal relations
with Yugoslavia along state lines. At the same time we
frankly declare that we shall not tolerate distortions in
questions of ideology; we shall safeguard the unity of the
Marxist-Leninist parties and shall fight for the purity of
revolutionary theory.

Comrades, I recall a conversation I had with the Yugo-
slav leaders in 1956, when we were exchanging views in
a friendly talk. Speaking of our disagreements, I drew
Comrade Tito's attention to the need for a deeper anal-
ysis of the events and our mutual relations, for a correct
appraisal of the situation that had developed, in order the
more rapidly to secure unity of views on a basis of prin-
ciple. In this conversation I reminded them of the well-
known popular saying: "The whole company is marching
in step, and only one soldier is out of step," and I asked
who must get into step — the company or the soldier. (Ani-
mation.) Koca Popovic, who was present during the con-
versation, asked:

"And who is the company, and who is the soldier?"
To that retort I replied:

459

"Ask yourself who is the company and who is the sol-
dier."

"At any rate," I said, "every soldier knows that a com-
pany is a company and that a soldier is only part of the
company, and therefore it is not the company that must
get into step with the soldier, but the other way round.
(Animation. Applause.) If you take a different attitude,
then say plainly that you are not a soldier of this com-
munist company which is marching together in step, guid-
ed by Marxism-Leninism." (Prolonged applause.)

We shall always guard as sacred the unity of our great
Marxist-Leninist international army of fighters for com-
munism. The fraternal Communist Parties of the Soviet
Union, China, Bulgaria and other socialist countries, the
Communist parties of the world are united and monolithic
and they resolutely oppose contemporary revisionism. The
Communists of all countries are holding high the victorious
banner of Marxism-Leninism and under this glorious ban-
ner they are confidently marching to their great goal.
(Prolonged applause.)

Comrades, the 7th Congress of the Bulgarian Commu-
nist Party is summing up the results of an important pe-
riod in the building of socialism in Bulgaria and is chart-
ing the ways for a further advance to socialism. There is
no doubt that the new tasks put forward by you will be
successfully accomplished by the Bulgarian people, closely
rallied round their militant Party of Communists.

The Bulgarian working class and all the Bulgarian peo-
ple can be justly proud of their Communist Party. (Stormy
applause.) For decades it was tempered in fierce bat-
tles against imperialist reaction, against the forces of
fascism, and it aroused the working class and the working
peasantry to struggle for a free socialist Bulgaria. Many
of the finest sons of your Party gave their lives for the
great cause of the working class.

Your Party was reared by Dimitr Blagoyev and Georgi
Dimitrov in the spirit of profound loyalty to Marxism-

460

Leninism and irreconcilability towards any deviations
from it. These splendid qualities are manifested with fresh
force in the staunch struggle of the Bulgarian Commu-
nists for the building of socialism, for unbreakable friend-
ship and unity among all the socialist countries and the
Communist and Workers' parties. By its Leninist interna-
tionalist policy and its loyalty to our common cause, the
Bulgarian Communist Party has won profound respect in
the international communist movement, in the ranks of
all the fraternal parties. (Prolonged applause.)

For us, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, a fra-
ternal party always closely linked with the Bulgarian Com-
munist Party, it is pleasant to note that the correct line
and policy of the Bulgarian Communist Party, both on
questions concerning socialist construction in the People's
Republic of Bulgaria and on questions of the internation-
al communist and working-class movement, are proof of
the Marxist-Leninist maturity of its leadership, of the abil-
ity of its Central Committee to develop the principles of
Marxism-Leninism creatively and apply them in practice.
(Prolonged applause.)

We are firmly convinced that, rallying its ranks still
closer round this tried and tested leadership, the Bulgar-
ian Communist Party will achieve new and still greater
victories in building socialism in the People's Republic
of Bulgaria and will always march in the front ranks of
the international communist movement. (Stormy ap-
plause.)

The relations between the Communist Party of the So-
viet Union and the Bulgarian Communist Party have al-
ways been, and continue to be the best, genuinely frater-
nal relations. They were so at the time when the leader-
ship of the Bulgarian Communist Party was headed by a
great son of the Bulgarian people, Georgi Dimitrov, and
they remain so after his death, when in the leadership of
the Bulgarian Communist Party and the People's Repub-
lic of Bulgaria there are loyal followers of Dimitrov, true

461

Marxist Leninists, headed by the Political Bureau of the
Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party
(Stormy, prolonged applause.)

Allow me, on behalf of the Central Committee of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union, to express our pleas-
ure at the fact that complete understanding and frater-
nal alliance have always existed on all questions between
our parties, just as they have existed between our states.
Whatever questions we have discussed with each other, we
have always seen that the representatives of the fraternal
Communist Party of Bulgaria have approached these ques-
tions from the same standpoint as the Communist Party
of the Soviet Union, from the positions of Marxism-Lenin-
ism. (Stormy, prolonged applause. Shouts of approval. All
rise.)

That understanding of our common tasks is founded on
the unswerving application of the principles of Marxism-
Leninism by which we are guided, and which are being
consistently implemented by the Central Committee of the
Bulgarian Communist Party, headed by its Political Bu-
reau and the First Secretary of the Central Committee,
Comrade Zhivkov. (Stormy applause.)

Our relations with the People's Republic of Bulgaria
along state lines are developing exceptionally favourably.
Between our countries, just as between our parties, there
have never been any divergencies, nor even a trace of di-
vergencies. The Government of the People's Republic of
Bulgaria, headed by Comrade Yugov, guided by the vital
interests of its people and its state, by the interests of
world peace, is pursuing this line consistently on all ques-
tions concerning the country's internal development and
international relation^. (Applause.) We and the Bulgarian
comrades have never had different points of view; our
views and appraisals have always coincided. And this is
understandable, because our countries are led by parties
which firmly adhere to Marxism-Leninism, to the positions
of strengthening fraternal bonds between all Communist

462

and Workers' parties, between all socialist states, to the
positions of proletarian internationalism. (Stormy ap-
plause.)

Our unity, our solidarity are not only a slogan, not only
an appeal. The unity and solidarity of the Communist and
Workers' parties are a force which really exists and is
constantly growing stronger. They have become an organ-
ic need for all our parties. Each Communist and Workers'
Party is doing everything possible for the further consoli-
dation of the unity of the parties adhering to Marxism-
Leninism, because this furthers the attainment of our great
g0al_the building of communist society. This is how we
understand and apply in practice the great slogan put for-
ward more than a hundred years ago by the founders of
scientific communism: "Workers of all countries, unite!"
(Prolonged applause.)

Drawing our ranks closer together, strengthening the
mighty camp of socialism and persistently striving for
world peace, we indignantly reject the slander concocted
by representatives of a certain party, who call themselves
Communists but who in practice pursue a policy alien to
communist principles. These people reason something like
this: If there are no disagreements between fraternal Com-
munist parties, this means that some one party is imposing
its will upon the others, that these parties are, as it were,
dependent upon that party.

To agree with such a point of view would mean splitting
— in order to please the imperialists — the unity of the
Communist and Workers' parties, organizing their rela-
tions in such a way that each would be acting alone, in an
un-coordinated way, ignoring the experience accumulated
by the other parties. All this would lead the Communist
and Workers' parties to contradictory actions and, in the
last analysis, to disagreements. This is precisely what is
desired by certain imperialist circles who spare no efforts
to win, by all kinds of hand-outs, allies of theirs in the

463

socialist countries, people who will spread their ideology
alien to Marxism-Leninism.

There is no need to say that such a policy would, of
course, bring joy to our enemies, in the same way as it
would do immense and truly irreparable harm to the com-
munist and working-class movement, to the entire great
cause of building socialism and communism.

But we shall never give our enemies cause for joy. We
are Communists, and this means that we are consistent
and true internationalists. The Communist parties resolute-
ly condemn any policy which runs counter to the strength-
ening of friendship among the Communist parties, which
departs from Marxist-Leninist principles.

Communists have always been and always will be faith-
ful to the Marxist-Leninist teaching; they have always
fought and always will fight against those who by their
actions weaken the unity of the Communist and Workers'
parties and the unity of the camp of the socialist coun-
tries, which is growing and becoming stronger. (Ap-
plause) .

Leninist Communists differ from the so-called "Commu-
nists" precisely by the fact that they are able correctly
to discern any manoeuvres by enemies designed to weaken
the forces of the communist and working-class movement,
to weaken the vanguard of the working masses— their
Communist and Workers' parties.

We are confident that the fraternal relations, relations
on a genuinely equal footing, between all the Communist
and Workers' parties will continue to grow stronger and
flourish for the good of the great cause we serve, for the
success of which we fight— the building of communist
society, the most just society on earth. (Prolonged ap-
plause.)

Allow me, comrades, to read this message of greetings
from the Central Committee of the Communist Party of
the Soviet Union to the 7th Congress of the Bulgarian
Communist Party:

4€4

TO THE 7th CONGRESS OF THE BULGARIAN
COMMUNIST PARTY

The Central Committee of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union warmly greets the delegates to the 7th Con-
gress of the Bulgarian Communist Party, the Bulgarian
Communists, and all the working people of Bulgaria, and
wishes them further successes in the building of social-
ism. (Stormy applause.)

Unswervingly following Marxist-Leninist principles
and creatively applying them in the conditions of its own
country, the Bulgarian Communist Party has achieved
outstanding successes in building a socialist society. In
the People's Republic of Bulgaria socialism has won a
decisive victory, not only in the town, but also in the
countryside. The rich experience of your Party in the
socialist reorganization of agriculture is a valuable con-
tribution to the theory and practice of the building of so-
cialism.

In the struggle to build up the new life the alliance
between the working class and the labouring peasantry
has become still stronger, the moral and political unity of
the Bulgarian people has been consolidated still more, and
their labour activity has risen to a higher level, which is
evidence of the further strengthening of the socialist state
as a powerful instrument for building a new society.

The Bulgarian Communist Party bears aloft the victo-
rious banner of Marxism-Leninism and fights irreconcila-
bly for the purity of revolutionary theory, against any and
every attempt to revise it. The Bulgarian Communists,
led by their Central Committee, faithful to the behests of
Georgi Dimitrov, the outstanding leader of the Bulgarian
and international communist movement, guarding as
sacred, and adding to, the glorious revolutionary traditions
of the Bulgarian working class, displayed a high degree
of loyalty to principle and staunchness in the strug-
gle for the great ideas of proletarian internationalism, for

465

the unity of the mighty socialist camp and the world com-
munist movement.

The Central Committee of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union whole-heartedly wishes the Bulgarian Com-
munists and all the working people of Bulgaria fresh vic-
tories in the building of socialism, in the struggle for the
prosperity of their happy and free homeland, for the
strengthening of the unity and friendship among all the
socialist countries, in the struggle for world peace.

May the fraternal People's Republic of Bulgaria and its
heroic people, who are building socialism, live long and
flourish! {Stormy, prolonged applause. Cheers. All rise.)

Long live the Bulgarian Communist Party — the tried
and tested guide and leader of the Bulgarian people!
{Stormy, prolonged applause. Cheers.)

May the eternal and unbreakable friendship between the
Soviet and Bulgarian peoples and the unity and solidar-
ity of the peoples of all the socialist countries develop
and go from strength to strength! {Stormy, prolonged ap-
plause. Cheers.)

CENTRAL COMMITTEE

OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

OF THE SOVIET UNION

{Stormy, prolonged ovation. Audience, standing, shouts
"Eternal friendship!", "C.P.S.U.!", "C.P.S.U.!",

"c.p.s.u.n

REPLY
TO Mr. CYRUS S. EATON

On the initiative of Mr. Cyrus S. Eaton, an industrialist well known
in American public affairs, the Second Pugwash Conference of Atomic
Scientists was held at Lake Beauport, Canada, from March 31 to April
11, 1958. It was attended by prominent scientists from Australia, Brit-
ain, Denmark, India, Canada, the Chinese People's Republic, the
U.S.S.R., the United States, France, the Federal Republic of Germany
and Japan. The conference discussed the danger of the atomic arms
race.

On April 11, Mr. Eaton sent a letter to N. S. Khrushchov, Chair-
man of the U.S.S.R. Council of Ministers.

It reads:

Dear Mr. Khrushchov:

I have the honour to associate myself with the enclosed communi-
cation from Lord Russell and the group of scientists who have par-
ticipated in the Second Pugwash Conference.

I have followed the initiative they have taken with the deepest
interest, and am glad to have been able to assist them with their ar-
rangements. I believe their deliberations may be of value in contrib-
uting to the solution of the urgent problems now facing the states-
men of the world.

Sincerely yours,

CYRUS EATON

N. S. KHRUSHCHOV'S REPLY TO CYRUS S. EATON

On June 4, the Soviet Embassy in the United States
handed Mr. Eaton the following reply from N. S. Khru-
shchov:

467

Dear Mr. Eaton,

Thank you for your letter and the appended main re-
ports of the Second Pugwash International Conference of
Atomic Scientists, held in Canada in April with your ac-
tive assistance and co-operation.

Having read the interesting materials of the conference,
I wish to draw attention to the great importance of the
efforts being made by scientists of different countries to
remove the horrible danger of nuclear war that is hanging
over mankind. The competent opinion of scientists on this
major problem of our age is undoubtedly of considerable
interest to the governments of the different countries.

In this connection I would like to point out that the
Soviet Government, well aware of its responsibilities for
the destinies of the world and striving to help remove the
threat of atomic war and strengthen peace, has decided
unilaterally to discontinue tests of all nuclear weapons
as a first practical step in this direction, in the hope that
other states possessing atomic weapons will also follow
this example. Unfortunately, other Powers have so far not
joined in this initiative.

I also wish to note the important part which you per-
sonally are playing in assisting the efforts of scientists of
the world in their struggle against the atomic danger and
in the establishment of mutual understanding and con-
fidence between our countries.

With sincere respect,

N. KHRUSHCHOV

Pravda, June 6, 1958

■H

SPEECH

AT MEETING OF SOFIA WORKING PEOPLE

TO MARK CONCLUSION OF 7th CONGRESS

OF BULGARIAN COMMUNIST PARTY

June 7, 1958

Dear Comrades and Friends,

Citizens of Sofia,

Allow me to convey to you, the working people of the
glorious capital of socialist Bulgaria and through you to
the entire Bulgarian people warm fraternal greetings
from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, from all
the peoples of our country. (Stormy, prolonged applause.
Cheers. The audience scans, "Eternal friendship!")

Allow me to thank with all my heart the working people
of Bulgaria for the exceptionally cordial welcome which
we, the representatives of the Soviet people, have re-
ceived in your beautiful country. (Prolonged applause.)

At the invitation of the Central Committee of the Bul-
garian Communist Party our delegation attended the 7th
Congress, which has just concluded its work.

Like the other delegations we greatly rejoice and take
pride in your Party and its glorious deeds. We have been
greatly impressed by the high level of political activity
and the complete unanimity that prevailed at the congress
from beginning to end. (Stormy applause.) This atmos-
phere reflects the great labour enthusiasm and creative
upsurge which now embraces the entire Bulgarian people,
who are building the new, socialist society.

469

The proceedings of the Congress of the Bulgarian Com-
munist Party have demonstrated once again the unbreak-
able unity of the ranks of all the Communist and Work-
ers' parties, their loyalty to the great and victorious ban-
ner of Marxism-Leninism, to the principles of proletarian
internationalism, their determination to continue to
strengthen this unity, to uphold the revolutionary theory
of scientific communism in the struggle against all kinds
of manifestations of revisionism and opportunism. (Ap-
plause.) The fact that the Congress of the Bulgarian
Communist Party was attended by delegations from
36 fraternal parties is conclusive proof of the cohesion
of the Communist and Workers' parties, an expression
of the high appreciation of the great services of your
Party as one of the militant detachments of the interna-
tional communist movement. (Stormy, prolonged ap-
plause.)

By its devoted struggle for the triumph of the great
ideas of Marxism-Leninism, for the interests of the people,
the party of the Bulgarian Communists has earned the
love of its people and universal esteem and authority
among the fraternal parties. It gives us pleasure and joy
to see that our fraternal Bulgarian Communist Party is
monolithic, strong, loyal to Marxism-Leninism and the
principles of proletarian internationalism. The glorious
Bulgarian working class, all the Bulgarian working
people can take legitimate pride in their Communist
Party. (Stormy, prolonged applause. The audience scans,
"BCPI")

The decisions of the 7th Congress sum up the remark-
able results of the building of socialism in Bulgaria. In a
brief period tremendous changes have taken place in your
country. Bulgaria, once an agrarian country with a back-
ward agriculture and semi-artisan industry, has become
a socialist industrial and agrarian Power with a flourish-
ing economy and culture. In the post-war years socialist
Bulgaria has achieved successes such as she could not

470

have achieved in the course of many decades under the
bourgeois system.

Bulgaria has existed for almost 1,500 years, but it is
only in the last one and a half decades that the Bulgarian
people have been the real masters of their destiny, the
builders of their happiness. The victorious socialist rev-
olution opened up to the Bulgarian workers and peas-
ants, to the entire people, the road to a new and happy
life.

We Soviet people whole-heartedly rejoice with you in
the flourishing of socialist Bulgaria, before which bright
new prospects are opening up. The directives of the 7th
Congress for the development of the Bulgarian People's
Republic show at what a swift pace your country's econ-
omy and culture will develop in the third five-year plan
period.

New factories and mills will be built, all branches of
industry will be further expanded. The republic's industry
will turn out still greater quantities of the most varied
goods. Bulgaria's agriculture has great prospects for
development. You have everything needed to make your
country a blossoming orchard in the next few years.
{Stormy applause.)

Bulgaria has splendid climatic conditions, an abund-
ance of sunshine and a fertile soil, which makes it possi-
ble to raise bumper crops of a variety of fruits and vege-
tables. But her main wealth is her people, the outstand-
ing fruit and vegetable growers who are famous through-
out Europe as masters of their craft. Socialist Bulgaria,
covered with orchards and vineyards, will blossom and
become even more beautiful. We wish from the bottom of
our hearts that your orchard may be in full flower, may
grow and bear its abundant fruit! (Stormy, prolonged ap-
plause. Cheers.)

The fulfilment of the magnificent programme for the
building of socialism in Bulgaria mapped out by the 7th
Party Congress depends on the efforts of the people, on

471

their labour. By their devoted labour the people are con-
solidating the gains of socialism, are accomplishing the
great tasks confronting socialist Bulgaria. The higher the
labour productivity, the lower the production costs, i.e.,
the less labour will be expended per unit of goods pro-
duced, the richer the country will be, the more goods will
be produced to satisfy the needs of man, both material and
spiritual. And people, comrades, are the main thing. It is
they who create values and give an impetus to life; in
our socialist countries they are the sovereign masters of
life, the builders of their happiness. (Applause.)

The working class, all the working people in the social-
ist countries, are the masters of their country. The people
and the people alone are the owners of the means of pro-
duction, the owners of all the wealth created by their
labour. Hence, the people themselves, by their entire life
and activity, test and confirm in the socialist countries
the principles of the theory of Marxism-Leninism on the
building of communist society.

The brilliant founders of scientific communism and our
great teachers, Marx, Engels and Lenin, created the im-
mortal teaching of the working class, demonstrated the
inevitability of the victory of the working class, the work-
ing people, over the exploiting classes and showed the
laws governing historical progress and the inevitability
of the victory of socialism over the capitalist system,
which is living out its day.

Marxism-Leninism, which has conquered the minds and
the hearts of millions upon millions of people, has become
a great material force. This teaching is now being devel-
oped not in the quiet of scientists' and theoreticians'
studies — it has emerged into the wide expanses of life,
and the working class, the labouring peasantry, all the
working people have become the most active fighters for
this teaching, building on the basis of the theoretical
principles of Marxism-Leninism a new communist society
whose construction is illumined by the unfading beacon

472

of the theory of Marxism-Leninism. The working class,
all the labouring people of our socialist countries, guided
by their Communist and Workers' parties, are carrying
out the theoretical principles of Marxism-Leninism in
practice.

The working man in socialist society, no matter how
small his sector, is making a useful contribution to so-
ciety, provided he works honestly, and by his work is con-
firming and developing the theory of Marxism-Leninism.
Guided by this theory, the working class, the working
people of our countries took power into their hands and
rid themselves for all time of capitalist slavery and all
the calamities of capitalism. 'Guided by this theory, the
peoples will build a communist society, the most just
society on earth.

That is why we say that the further development of
theoretical, social thinking is no longer the realm of in-
dividual theoreticians or a handful of people who sit in
their studies and develop theory. No, today the entire
people take part in this great work, because the shorten-
ing of the transition period from socialism to communism
depends on their labour, on their efforts. And this is the
main thing. Life itself, the activity of the Communist and
Workers' parties, the practical activity of the people build-
ing socialism and communism, reaffirm the theoretical
postulates of Marxism-Leninism, give rise to the new
that helps develop these theoretical principles.

Whereas in the past the revolutionary theory of social
development was accessible only to a certain group of
people who studied theoretical problems, in our concrete
socialist conditions this theory has now become accessible
to the broadest masses of the people. And the masses of
the working people of socialist society who take part in
the noblest cause—the building of communism—have be-
come the creators of this theory, the participants in the
materialization of this theory in practice, in the develop-
ment of theoretical thought. The theory of Marxism-Lenin-

473

ism has merged with the practice of the building of com-
munism and therein, comrades, lies its irresistible, vital
force. A people whose ideology is Marxism-Leninism is
invincible. (Stormy applause.)

Dear comrades, the socialist camp, gaining in strength
and scope, is a source of great happiness for all the
peoples of the socialist countries, including the Bulgarian
people. This camp ensures their freedom and independ-
ence, reliably guarantees the defence of the gains of social-
ism and provides fraternal mutual assistance in building
socialism. (Prolonged applause.)

The peoples of our countries are vitally interested in
a lasting and stable peace. They threaten no one. They
are fighting for peace, against war and the danger of war.
War is alien to the very nature of the socialist countries,
who are coming out as the champions of the security of
the peoples, as the standard-bearers of peace. (Applause.)

Let us look, for instance, at the Balkans. It is well
known that the Balkan peninsula was called for many
years the powder barrel of Europe, a breeding ground of
constant conflicts and armed clashes. The tenser the re-
lations between the imperialist states were, the more dan-
gerous the situation in the Balkans became. The peoples
of the Balkan countries still remember the immeasurable
calamities which they experienced as a result of military
clashes.

After the Second World War, when a large proportion
of the Balkan countries took the socialist road, the situa-
tion in that part of the world changed fundamentally. The
Balkan socialist countries not only live in fraternal
friendship among themselves, but are also consistently
carrying through a policy of peace and co-operation with
their neighbours. This has created a completely new sit-
uation in the Balkans.

The Soviet Union, though not a Balkan country, lies in
immediate proximity to them. That is why our people
cannot remain indifferent to what is going on in that part

474

^^mm

of the world. Our country, like the other socialist coun-
tries, is vitally interested in seeing that the cause of peace
in the Balkans, just as in the rest of the world, continues
to grow stronger, that all peoples of the Balkan countries,
all peoples of the world live in peace and concord. (Stor-
my applause.)

Dear comrades, we have spent only a week in your
wonderful country, but even this brief space of time has
enabled us to feel with all our hearts the depth and sin-
cerity of the sentiments the fraternal Bulgarian people
entertain for the peoples of the Soviet Union. (Stormy ap-
plause. Cheers. The audience scans, "Eternal friendship!")

The close friendship between the peoples of our coun-
tries is of long standing and has great and glorious tradi-
tions. Our peoples have more than once fought shoulder
to shoulder against foreign enslavers. The progressives of
our countries had always been ideologically linked in the
common struggle for progress and the happiness of the
people. But the friendship between our peoples has be-
come especially cordial since the time when Bulgaria took
the road of socialism.

As brothers, as true comrades in the common cause, we
are marching towards our bright future— communism.
There is no force in the world which could separate our
peoples. (Stormy, prolonged applause. Cheers. The audi-
ence scans, ' Eternal friendship!")

Let me assure you, our dear comrades and brothers,
that the Bulgarian people have in the Soviet people a true
and dependable friend on whom they can rely always and
in all respects. (Stormy, prolonged applause. Cheers.)

We wish the Bulgarian people, the Bulgarian Commu-
nist Party further big successes in the struggle for social-
ism, for world peace! (Stormy, prolonged applause.
Cheers.)

Long live the Bulgarian people, our true friends and
brothers! (Stormy, prolonged applause. Cheers. The
audience scans, "Eternal friendship!")

475

Long live the leader of the Bulgarian people— the heroic
Bulgarian Communist Party and its Central Committee!
(Stormy, prolonged applause. Cheers. The audience scans,
"BCP!")

Long live unbreakable Soviet-Bulgarian friendship!
(Stormy, prolonged applause. Cheers and cries of "Eter-
nal friendship!'')

Long live the unity of the countries of the mighty
socialist camp — a reliable guarantee of the peace and se-
curity of the peoples of the world! (Stormy, prolonged ap-
plause. Cheers.)

Long live the victorious banner of Marxism-Leninism!
(Stormy, prolonged applause. Cheers. Cries of "Friend-
ship!" The audience scans, "C.P.S.U.", "BCP/')

REPLIES

TO QUESTIONS PUT BY EDITOR

OF MELBOURNE HERALD, JOHN WATERS

June 11, 1958

Mr. John Waters, editor of the Melbourne Herald, re-
cently submitted a number of questions to N. S. Khru-
shchov, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the
C.P.S.U. and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the
U.S.S.R.

Below we publish N. S. Khrushchov's replies to the
questions of Mr. Waters.

Question: Your constant appeals for co-existence be-
tween the communist world and the Western world are un-
doubtedly arousing wide interest everywhere. Would you
like to explain your conception of co-existence, which, in
the view of many people, is not quite clear?

Answer: Our point of view regarding the nature of inter-
state relations between the socialist and capitalist coun-
tries has been set forth a number of times. The gist of it,
in brief, is, first, that the form of state organization and
the form of social organization of any particular country
must be decided by the people of that country them-
selves; secondly, that no state or any external forces can or
should impose on other nations their way of life or their
political or social system; thirdly, since man's social
development takes place along an ascending line, it inev-
itably gives rise to new forms of life for society. Con-
sequently, the appearance of states with a socialist system,

47f

as a result of the operation of the objective laws of social
development, is just as natural as was, in its day, the
appearance of bourgeois states; and lastly, in order to rid
mankind of devastating wars and, in particular, of the
threat of the most destructive war ever known by human-
ity— nuclear war — we feel that the principle of peaceful
co-existence and co-operation must prevail in relations
between the socialist and capitalist states.

What does this principle mean in practice? It does not
demand that the capitalist states renounce their existing
system or ideology. Naturally, acceptance of this principle
will not lead to the immediate elimination of disputes and
contradictions that are inevitable under conditions in
which different states exist. But this principle demands
that the states, in settling outstanding issues between
them, should renounce the use of force in any form, in-
cluding military force, and seek the peaceful settlement of
possible conflicts with an eye to the mutual interests of
the parties concerned. Peaceful co-existence also presup-
poses the complete and unqualified non-interference of
states in the internal affairs of one another with a view to
changing their system or way of life, or for any other
reason.

I think that the meaning imparted to the term peaceful
coexistence will now be clearer to you. As you see, we stand
for a healthy and realistic basis for relations between
states with different social systems. The principle of peace-
ful co-existence does not place any individual state or
any group of states at an advantage over other states
and does not infringe on anyone's interests; it is of bene-
fit to all who desire peace, not in words, but in deeds.

When Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, the great founder of the
Soviet state, put forward for the first time the idfc of
peaceful co-existence, there were "wiseacres" in the West
who regarded this as a display of weakness on the part of
socialism. Forty years have gone by since then. The whole
history of development of the Soviet socialist state has

478

proved its great strength and viability. I don't think there
is any need for me to remind you that in the Second
World War the Soviet Union not only withstood Hitler
Germany, which had enslaved practically the whole of
Europe, but also completely routed all its enemies.

And it was not by chance that after the Second World
War the peoples of a series of countries in Europe and
Asia resolutely took the road of socialist development. In
following this course they have achieved great success-
unknown under capitalism — in developing their countries.

No one now has the temerity to talk about socialism
being weak. But we continue, as in the past, to firmly
advocate peaceful co-existence between countries, regard-
less of their social or slate systems. Our stand is that no
single country should intervene in the internal affairs of
any other country.

In circumstances in which two systems exist on our
planet — the socialist system and the capitalist system —
no one has yet figured out another way of sparing man-
kind from wars other than peaceful co-existence.

The Bandung Conference of Afro-Asian countries, and
later the United Nations, recognized the principles of
peaceful co-existence. In this we see the triumph of good
sense. Now all that is required is for the peoples of all
countries to insist that their governments — in deeds, and
not merely in words — apply the principles of peaceful co-
existence.

Question: Could you dwell in greater detail on your
hopes for a relaxation of international tension as a result
of summit talks?

Answer: All nations desire to live in peace and friend-
ship and wish to be delivered, once and for all, from
fears preying upon the minds of people for their future
and that of their dear ones. They wish to bring about
a situation in which the vast sums now being spent
on armaments could be used for the good of mankind,
to raise living standards, to develop the national economy

479

and culture, and so on. Such conditions can be
secured only by gradually achieving normal relations
between states, and this requires, above all, the settlement
of those questions which hinder an understanding between
states.

What are these issues? Frankly speaking, this involves
problems resulting from the Western Powers' pursuance
of the policy of cold war and "positions of strength." At
the present time the best way to deal with questions which
are ripe for settlement is through a conference of leading
statesmen, that is to say, a summit conference. We are
convinced that, given the desire on the part of both sides,
such a conference could discover ways of solving urgent
international problems.

A beginning should be made with what is realistically
possible, so as to solve the problems by stages, that is,
to proceed from the simpler to the more complex ques-
tions. It is precisely for this reason, therefore, that we
suggested that talks be held with the Western Powers
first of all on the questions which, in our view, are already
ripe for solution. These questions are well known and so
I shall not. repeat them. Naturally, in addition to these,
we are also ready to discuss other urgent questions re-
garding which the attitudes of the parties involved have
already come so close that there are prospects of reaching
agreed decisions on them, provided their discussion helps
to ease and not intensify international tension.

It has to be noted that so far the Western Powers have
shown no real desire to hasten a meeting at the summit.

It is more than five months since the Soviet Union put
forward the proposal for a summit conference. How far
have preparations advanced during this period? The West-
ern Powers, albeit with considerable reluctance, consent-
ed in principle to holding a conference. But how many
preliminary conditions and provisions and restrictions of
every description did they advance! The impression is
created that while proclaiming in words the desirability

480

of a conference, they are simultaneously doing their ut-
most to delay it as long as possible or not to hold it
at all. Moreover, they are forcing the pace of the arms
race, trying to establish rocket launching sites on the ter-
ritories of European countries, and trying as much as
possible to extend existing military blocs.

As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, it has exerted
and will continue to exert, every effort to bring about a
summit conference. We believe that if the conference
settles even a few of the questions which are ready for
solution, this will provide a good basis for further steps
in easing world tension. The settlement of even a few im-
portant international problems could produce a chain
reaction for an over-all normalization of international
relations. And this in turn would help to strengthen con-
fidence between states— confidence which with time would
grow into strong friendly relations based on the principles
of peaceful co-existence.

Question: Assuming that the Western Powers were to
agree to the cessation of tests could you indicate what
the U.S.S.R. proposes as the next steps in solving the
problem of prohibiting the production of nuclear weapons,
destroying stockpiles of such weapons, and securing the
complete banning of the use of fissile material for military
purposes?

Answer: As yet there is no sign that the United States
and Britain are agreed to the ending of tests. On the con-
trary, Britain and the United States are already carrying
out new nuclear weapons tests, and declare that they
intend to continue to do so.

However, we have not lost hope that under pressure
from the peoples they may revise their present attitude.

Although the facts indicate that there are no grounds
as yet for believing that the Western Powers will agree
to the ending of nuclear tests, nevertheless, I should like
to say a few words about possible subsequent steps by the
Soviet Government.

481

Following the ending of nuclear weapons tests, it
would be possible to raise the question of the Powers as-
suming a solemn undertaking not to use atomic or hydro-
gen weapons, and subsequently to make a decision on the
total outlawing of atomic and thermo-nuclear weapons,
ending their production, destroying all stockpiles, and
establishing an appropriate effective system of control
and inspection. The cessation of tests would make it pos-
sible, with the simultaneous solution of the nuclear weap-
on aspects of the disarmament problem, to settle in a
radical way problems relating to conventional armaments.
I assume that you are already aware that the Soviet Union,
in the recent past alone, has carried out a unilateral
reduction in its armed forces by 1,840,000 men, and is
now carrying out a further reduction by 300,000 men.
Needless to say, a corresponding reduction is being car-
ried out in the armaments and war materiel at the dispo-
sal of the Soviet Army and Navy.

As you see, the Soviet Union has by its deeds set an
example for a real settlement of this most important ques-
tion. It is now the turn of the United States and British
governments.

Question: The Western point of view has been repeatedly
set forth as demanding an all-round agreement on disar-
mament, to cover all types of nuclear weapons, conven-
tional armaments and military personnel, on the grounds
that the total abolition of nuclear weapons without a cor-
responding reduction in conventional armed forces would
result in the West finding itself faced with overwhelming
Soviet superiority. Could you indicate how you propose to
answer this viewpoint which the Western Powers have
never relinquished?

Answer: I cannot agree to the way in which the question
is posed. Please don't be offended, but the many years
of discussion of disarmament have shown that the repre-
sentatives of the Western Powers, to put it mildly, have no

482

burning desire to reach agreement, whether complete or
partial, on that problem.

The Western press has recently written much about the
U.S.S.R. not wanting a comprehensive settlement of the
disarmament problem and the prohibition of atomic weap-
ons, and only calling for a partial settlement of individ-
ual aspects of the problem. Is that really the case? Let
me recall a few facts.

From the very first days of the discussion on the dis-
armament problem in the United Nations and at various
international conferences and meetings, the Soviet Govern-
ment put forward, and has insistently upheld, a compre-
hensive plan for radically solving the disarmament prob-
lem as a whole, that is to say, a solution which would
ensure the total prohibition of atomic and hydrogen weap-
ons, the withdrawal of these weapons from the arma-
ments of the states and the destruction of all stockpiles, a
substantial reduction in armed forces, conventional ar-
maments and the military appropriations of the states, the
dismantling of foreign military bases on alien territories,
and also the establishment of the strictest international
control over the observance of any agreement reached on
these questions.

Only such a solution would make it possible to free the
peoples completely from the danger of a devastating
atomic war.

The United States and its Western partners base their
calculations in foreign policy and their military plans
primarily on the use of nuclear weapons. That is why they
refuse to prohibit atomic and hydrogen weapons on the
grounds, so they claim, that they need them to counter-
balance the Soviet Union's preponderant strength in con-
ventional armaments and armed forces. At one time they
declared that the Western Powers would agree to the pro-
hibition of nuclear weapons if the Soviet Union agreed to
accept their proposal establishing limits for armed forces

483

at 1,000,000-1,500,000 men for the United States and the
U.S.S.R. and at 650,000 men for Britain and France.

However, no sooner did the Soviet Union, in May 1955,
accept the level proposed by the Western Powers, than
those Powers immediately backed out, refusing to prohib-
it atomic and thermo-nuclear weapons. Furthermore, on
the pretext that in the existing circumstances it was im-
possible to reach agreement on comprehensive disarma-
ment, they called for an agreement to be worked out on
certain individual aspects of disarmament.

The Soviet Union met the Western Powers half-way,
and expressed its readiness to solve the disarmament prob-
lem, piecemeal. What was the Western Powers' reply to
this? In 1957, they came out with fresh proposals, amount-
ing in fact to merely a reduction of the armed forces
of the U,S.S,R. and the United States to the level of two
and a half million men, since the Western Powers made
all the subsequent reductions in two stages to 1,700,000
men conditional upon the settlement of international po-
litical problems, including the solution of the German
question on their own terms. In the same way the West-
ern Powers refused to accept the Soviet Union's proposal
for a reduction of 15 per cent in the military appropria-
tions of the states, and tried to reduce the whole matter
to one of providing information on military expenditures.
They opposed the Soviet Union's proposals for the dis-
mantling of foreign military bases on alien territory
and for a reduction in foreign armed forces on German
territory by one-third or by any other agreed amount, and
they also opposed the Soviet Union's proposal for the re-
duction of foreign armed forces on the territories of other
European states.

Thus, the Soviet Union has displayed its readiness to
solve the disarmament problem and the prohibition of
atomic weapons both as a whole, as well as piecemeal.
But no sooner had the Soviet Union agreed to the West-
ern Powers' proposals on the need to solve the disar-

484

mament problem in parts than the Western press forthwith
began to write about the Soviet Union opposing a cardinal,
comprehensive solution of this important problem. As for
the United States and the other Western countries, they
have come out not only as opponents of banning atomic
weapons but also as opponents of a substantial reduction in
the armed forces and the armaments of states. All this
has been done to the accompaniment of solemn assur-
ances to their devotion to peace and their sincere desire to
solve the disarmament problem.

Now regarding talk of the Soviet Union's so-called
numerical superiority over the NATO forces. The leaders
of the North Atlantic bloc countries require such talk for
the exclusive purpose of justifying their own feverish
thermo-nuclear armaments race. I have already pointed
out that in the period from 1955 to 1958 the strength of
the Soviet armed forces, taking into account the unilateral
reduction now being carried out, has been lowered by
2,140,000 men. We have adopted a decision to end nuclear
weapons tests unilaterally. The Soviet Government has
also repeatedly declared its readiness to examine the
question of the withdrawal of the armed forces of foreign
Powers from the territory of Germany and other member-
countries of NATO and of the Warsaw Treaty and of
dismantling foreign military bases on alien territories or,
as a first step, to discuss the question of a reduction of
the strength of foreign troops stationed on these territo-
ries.

You are no doubt aware that a conference of the Polit-
ical Consultative Committee of the Warsaw Treaty was
held recently in Moscow. This conference adopted the
Declaration of the States Party to the Warsaw Treaty and
other important decisions which are indicative of the
peaceable nature of the socialist states. A decision was
adopted for a further reduction in the armed forces of the
Warsaw Treaty member-states and the conference approved
the Soviet Government's proposal, in agreement with

485

the Government of Rumania, for the early withdrawal
from that country of troops stationed there under the
Warsaw Treaty. By agreement with the Hungarian Gov-
ernment, the Government of the U.S.S.R. has also decided
to reduce this year the number of Soviet troops stationed
in Hungary.

In addition, the Political Consultative Committee de-
cided to invite the member-states of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization to conclude a non-aggression pact
between the states party to the Warsaw Treaty, and the
NATO member-states.

However, the Soviet Union's peaceable efforts have so
far not met with proper understanding and support from
the Western Powers. Furthermore, the strange situation
has arisen in which concrete steps by the Soviet Union in
reducing its armed forces and armaments, and even as
humane an act as its unilateral ending of nuclear weap-
ons tests, are portrayed in the West as propaganda, while
the activity so dangerous to peace of certain circles in
the Western countries, who are pursuing the armaments
race, the policy of strength, and conduct nuclear weapons
tests — all this is portrayed as beneficial.

It must be stated with complete frankness that the
ruling circles of certain countries, pursuing the "positions
of strength" policy, have so completely turned their backs
on the logic of facts, and their subservient press depicts
matters in such a way, that the peoples of these countries
are finding it increasingly difficult to understand the
events now taking place. We must note with regret that the
militarists are -deliberately poisoning the minds of the
people and fomenting war hysteria.

The Soviet Government is of the opinion that the ques-
tion of disarmament will have to be one of the major ques
tions discussed at a Heads of Government conference. In
view of the fact that it has not been possible so far to
reach agreement on the disarmament problem as a whole,
and since the Western Powers oppose this, the Soviet

486

Union suggests the gradual solution of the disarmament
problem, as the method most realistic and warranted in
the present circumstances. In particular, the Soviet Gov-
ernment proposes that the conference should discuss the
following urgent disarmament questions: the immediate
ending of atomic and hydrogen weapons tests; renuncia-
tion by the U.S.S.R., the United States and Great Britain
of the use of nuclear weapons; the establishment in Cen-
tral Europe of an atom-free zone; the reduction of the
number of foreign troops stationed on the territory of
Germany and within the frontiers of other European states;
the drawing up of an agreement on questions con-
nected with the prevention of a surprise attack.

In deference to the wishes of the United States, the
Soviet Union has also agreed to discuss at the conference
the prohibition of the use of outer space for military pur-
poses, but not as an issue considered in isolation, and
not on such conditions as would be advantageous to the
United States alone inasmuch as it does not yet possess
the intercontinental ballistic missile, but linked with the
question of dismantling foreign military bases on alien
territories — bases which are springing up like poisonous
toadstools after the rain around the entire perimeter of
the state frontiers of the Soviet Union and the other so-
cialist countries.

Thus, you can see, the Soviet Union is prepared to con-
clude both a comprehensive agreement on the disarma-
ment problem as well as an agreement on individual
aspects of that problem. Matters now rest with the West-
ern Powers.

Question: Does the launching of the Soviet sputniks in-
dicate that the U.S.S.R. has achieved permanent superior-
ity over the West in the field of technology, or do you
consider that uninterrupted invention by both sides of new
types of atomic weapons has resulted in a deadlock, in
which neither side can ever hope to achieve decisive mili-
tary superiority?

487

Answer: First of all I should like to stress that the
launching of artificial earth satellites is one of the most
important landmarks in the history of the development of
mankind, of science, technology and culture. Scientists in
many fields are now being given vast opportunities to
make fuller study of outer space, the solar system and the
structure of our Earth. They are being given great oppor-
tunities not only for posing new theoretical problems, but
also for their practical solution.

Of course, in order to launch such sputniks as Soviet
scientists and engineers have sent into outer space— par-
ticularly the third sputnik, which weighs almost a ton and
a half— it is necessary to possess exceptionally highly de-
veloped, large-scale technology. But the Soviet people do
not consider that what they have accomplished is unat-
tainable, in the final analysis, by other peoples as well.
The important thing is that the fruits of human activity
should be used not to the detriment but for the benefit of
mankind.

Today precisely the opposite picture is being created.
Although the Soviet Union is prepared to renounce the
military use of rockets, with the help of which the sputniks
were launched, it may be said that Britain and the United
States are also concentrating every effort on developing
intercontinental ballistic missiles, but with the sole pur-
pose of making them a weapon for the mass destruction
of human beings and material values. And they proceed
from the strange philosophy that the possession of this
terrible weapon by both sides will create the necessary
prerequisites for maintaining peace.

The arms race has its logical conclusion— it leads in the
long run to war. The talk about atom and other deadlocks
serves a purpose— to justify the arms race, particularly
the nuclear and thermo-nuclear arms race. When the
advocates of this philosophy are asked why peace has to
be secured by brandishing atom and hydrogen bombs, they
can give no convincing reply.

488

We firmly believe that in present conditions there is
only one way to maintain peace and security— general
disarmament, the prohibition of weapons of mass destruc-
tion, peaceful co-existence, and creative, constructive
effort aimed at establishing lasting confidence among all
nations.

Question: Could you explain in greater detail why the
Soviet Union objects to German reunification, and indi-
cate on what conditions the U.S.S.R. would agree to reunifi-
cation?

Answer: Your question, in the form you have posed it,
testifies, unfortunately, to a most deplorable ignorance of
the facts concerning the Soviet Union's position on the
German problem, or else you have become — wittingly or
unwittingly — the victim of fabrications on this question
which for more than ten years have been circulated in the
West. "*

In view of this, permit me to recall certain facts which
prove incontestably that it is precisely the Soviet Union,
in contrast to the Western countries, which has always
advocated and consistently continues to advocate restor-
ing the national unity of the German people. This is due
not only to our fundamental recognition of the right of
all nations to self-determination and the establishment of
independent national states, but also to the realization
that the split created in Germany by the Western states
and the policy of resurrecting German militarism are
fraught with a serious threat to European peace and
security.

The Soviet Union has repeatedly submitted concrete
proposals for the reunification of Germany as a peaceful
and democratic state. Let me just recall the Soviet Union's
proposals of March 10 and April 9, 1952, to the Govern-
ments of the United States, Britain and France, to initiate
discussions on the questions of a German peace treaty,
German reunification and the creation of an all-German
government. We submitted a draft of the fundamentals

489

of a peace treaty with Germany and proposed that the
question of holding free all-German elections should be
discussed. These provided realistic opportunities for solv-
ing the German problem, but they were not made use of
through no fault of ours.

The conclusion of the Paris Agreements, West Ger-
many's inclusion in the aggressive NATO bloc, the perpet-
uation of the occupation of West Germany and the estab-
lishment of foreign military bases on her territory, the
Bundestag decision to give the West German Bundes-
wehr atomic and rocket weapons — all these and similar
measures have greatly aggravated the situation in Europe.
The Soviet Union has repeatedly warned of the danger of
this policy for the German people and other European
peoples, as it erects insurmountable barriers to German
reunification and creates a hotbed of new war in Europe.
Responsibility for this must be borne by the Western
Powers and the ruling circles of West Germany who fol-
low in their wake, and in no way by the Soviet Union.

Today two sovereign German states exist and are devel-
oping on the territory of Germany, each possessing a dif-
ferent social and economic system. The question of Ger-
man reunification in practice has become a question of
rapprochement and the reaching of understanding be-
tween these two German states. Without doubt, this is only
possible provided West Germany renounces the policy of
reviving German militarism and revanche. I am stressing
this because I fear that in your country, Australia, there
is apparently insufficient appreciation of the well-founded
apprehensions aroused among European peoples by a pol-
icy aimed at reviving German militarism and revanche.

Thus, the reunification of Germany today depends on
appropriate actions by the German people themselves. The
Germans themselves, on the basis of mutual agreement
between the two existing German states — the German
Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany
— must first and foremost resolve the problems of German

490

reunification. As before, the Soviet Union is ready to help
the German people actively in creating a single peaceful
and democratic Germany, and to support such proposals
as the creation of a confederation of the two German
states, the establishment of an atom-free zone in Europe,
the reduction of foreign troops stationed on German ter-
ritory, and any other proposals which facilitate this pur-
pose.

Question: What in your opinion are the main factors
determining relations between the East and West since
the death of Stalin?

Answer: In speaking of relations between the East and
West you apparently have in mind the development of
relations between the socialist and capitalist states over
the past five years. We Communists think it is incorrect
to divide history into periods according to the life and
work of any given statesman, however outstanding he
may have been. The basic and decisive factor determining
relations between the East and West for more than forty
years has been the existence of two social and political
systems.

The imperialists have never abandoned their hopes of
destroying the first socialist state in the world, and later
the socialist camp as well. They have tried every means
to accomplish this, including war — and nothing has
come of it — but they have not drawn the necessary histor-
ical conclusions from this.

The socialist countries by their very nature have no
need of war, are not interested in enslaving other peoples.
It is precisely for this reason that the foreign policy of
the Soviet Union, from the very day of its birth, has been
the policy of peaceful co-existence. I repeat: always, for
more than forty years now. Soviet foreign policy has con-
tinuity of character: it has always been, it is and it will
continue to be, the Leninist policy of peaceful co-existence.

During the past five years we have particularly clearly
seen a struggle between two opposing trends in interna-

491

tional relations. One trend is the determined and consis-
tent struggle of the countries in the "peace zone" — the
countries of the socialist camp and the Asian and African
countries which have recently cast off the fetters of colo-
nialism— for peace, for a relaxation of tension in relations
between states, for ending the cold war, for settling out-
standing international issues by means of negotiations.
The other trend is the stubborn unwillingness of certain
Western circles to put an end to the cold war, their desire
to solve international problems from a "position of
strength," which, without doubt, only sharpens tension in
international relations.

Characteristic of this period is the tremendous growth
of the forces standing for peace, for the relaxation of
international tension. It is precisely thanks to this that
the wars in Korea and Viet-Nam were ended, that the
peace treaty was signed with Austria and that the well-
known Four-Power Conference of Heads of Government
was held in Geneva in 1955.

I should also like to draw attention to another feature
typical of this period. No sooner is a slight easing in
international tension observed, than certain circles in the
West resort to artificial means to prevent an improvement
in the international situation, with a view to electrifying
the atmosphere once more and making the situation more
acute.

The struggle of these two opposing trends is to be seen
most clearly at the present time over the question of con-
vening a summit conference, of which I have already
spoken.

Question: Do you consider it vitally important for the
success of summit talks to invite communist China to take
part in the talks or to join an agreement later?

Answer: I think there is hardly anyone with the slight-
est understanding of international relations who would
deny the outstanding role played by People's China, with
her 600 million inhabitants, in international affairs. The

492

People's Republic of China is exerting a most beneficial
influence on the development of the international situa-
tion, not only in the Far East but also throughout the
world.

The most important point is not whether the People's
Republic of China will or will not be invited to a summit
conference, but whether the legitimate interests of one of
the Great Powers, whose foreign policy, like that of the
Soviet Union, is based on the principle of peaceful co-
existence, the desire to establish good-neighbourly and
friendly relations with all countries, will be taken into
account. It must be borne in mind that there can be no
decisions taken that harm the interests of the People's
Republic of China.

Question: Australians, who want friendship with our
Asian neighbours, are showing particular interest in the
statements by Mao Tse-tung on contradictions which
may exist in communist society and on the existence
of "different roads to socialism." Are there any differ-
ences between the Russian and Chinese communist doc-
trines?

Answer: This question can only arise through lack of
knowledge of Marxism. The Communist Party of the So-
viet Union and the Communist Party of China neither
have had, nor now have, different views on fundamental
questions, for they proceed from the monolithic teachings
of Marxism-Leninism, which they follow loyally.

If you study the Declaration of the Meeting of Repre-
sentatives of Communist and Workers' Parties of the
Socialist Countries, held in Moscow November 14-16, 1957,
you will note that it reflects the unity of views of the
Communist parties on all the major problems of inter-
national relations, the international labour movement and
socialism. The Declaration was signed, together with the
other parties, by representatives of the Communist parties
of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China.

I can assure you that to seek "differences between the

493

Russian and Chinese communist doctrines" is to labour
in vain.

Question: If there is a new interpretation of Marxism,
which admits "defferent roads to socialism," how in your
opinion will this affect the future role of those non-Com-
munist parties in the West which are devoted to social-
ism?

Answer: In the first place, the way you have raised the
question is in itself incorrect. There is absolutely no "new
interpretation" of Marxism regarding different roads to
socialism. It was V. I. Lenin who developed the concept
that, provided such fundamental principles of the socialist
transformation of society as the dictatorship of the prole-
tariat and the leading role of the Communist Party were
observed, each country would make its own contribution
to the establishment of the socialist system, in accordance
with the specific conditions of the given country. The 20th
Congress of our Party only gave concrete form to this
proposition of Lenin's as applied to the situation today,
pointing out in particular the possibility of making use
of peaceful forms, including parliamentary methods, for
the transition to socialism.

Concerning the role and place of non-Communist par-
ties, it should first of all be stressed that, in the present
situation, co-operation between the Communist Party and
other parties is not only possible but essential for the so-
cialist transformation of society. Socialism today has be-
come a world system. In every country it is gaining more
and more supporters, and not only among the working
class. This gives rise to the realistic prospect of forming
broad alliances between the working class and its van-
guard, the Communist Party, and other social strata, and
consequently, other parties, in the struggle for socialism.

Naturally, alliances of this kind can only take place
with such parties which, not in words, but in deeds, have
as their purpose the building of socialist society or, as you
put it, are devoted to the ideal of socialism. What is meant

494

by being devoted to the ideal of socialism? This means to
have as one's aim the creation of socialist society, that is,
to give the working people control of the instruments and
means of production, either by expropriation or, in indi-
vidual instances, by buying them from the capitalists; it
means the abolition of the exploitation of man by man.
The party which genuinely sets itself these ideals, and is
ready to fight for them, naturally can and should be an
ally of the Communist Party in the socialist transforma-
tion of society. In alliance with such parties, the Commu-
nist parties will be able to unite the forces of the working
class and then, through joint efforts, achieve unification
of its allies — the working peasantry, handicraftsmen, in-
telligentsia— around the working class. This unification is
an essential condition for the conquest of power by the
working class and the establishment of the socialist sys-
tem, among others by peaceful, parliamentary means.

At the present time, views can be heard in the West al-
leging that co-operation between the Communists and oth-
er parties — first and foremost the Socialists — can only be
of a temporary nature, that after they have won power
"the Communists will swallow up the Socialists." This
fabrication is needed by the Right-wing leaders of the So-
cialist parties in certain Western countries in order to
frighten the rank and file of their parties and alienate them
from the idea of unity of action with the Communists. In
actual fact, Communists consider it not only possible but
desirable to maintain co-operation with non-Communist
parties after coming to power, if these parties prove their
desire for building socialism in practice.

There are numerous examples to prove that this is ac-
tually the case. For instance, the experience of many coun-
tries in the West and the East, in particular, the experi-
ence of the German Democratic Republic, Czechoslovakia
and the People's Republic of China, shows that political
leadership by the working class and the Communist parties
is exercised in these countries with the continued existence

495

of parties expressing the interests of the middle strata of
town and countryside. Furthermore, co-operation with
these parties, when they sincerely sympathize with the
ideals of socialism, is of great assistance, capable of hast-
ening the advance to socialism.

Question: Could you give me your views regarding the
apprehensions of Australians lest the Russian request to
prolong the stay of Russian scientists in the Antarctic af-
ter the end of the International Geophysical Year repre-
sents a threat to Australian claims to sovereignty in the
area?

Answer: Your statement about "the Russian request to
prolong the stay of their scientists in the Antarctic" seems
to be based on a misunderstanding. We have never made
any such request to anyone. The decision to prolong the
International Geophysical Year in the Antarctic was taken,
as is known, at a meeting of the Special Committee for
Antarctic Research under the International Council of Sci-
entific Unions, held at the Hague in February, this year,
and the proposal to prolong scientific research in the Ant-
arctic was submitted by the representative of the United
States, not of the U.S.S.R. Soviet scientists simply sup-
ported this proposal.

As far as our position on the question of jurisdiction
over the Antarctic is concerned, we consider the Antarc-
tic to be of international importance inasmuch as its ter-
ritory and the adjacent waters are of great economic val-
ue to many states, including the Soviet Union. Therefore,
according to international practice, all interested countries
should take part in discussing the question of the status
of any area of international importance. The Soviet Gov-
ernment feels that this international practice should also
be followed in deciding the question of jurisdiction over
the Antarctic.

Question: In view of the fact that the severance of diplo-
matic relations between Moscow and Canberra was caused
by circumstances arising in the Stalin era, are you of

496

the opinion that the time has now come for the complete
resumption of diplomatic relations between our two coun-
tries?

Answer: Yes, I do think so. Incidentally, the "Stalin
era" has nothing to do with the matter. The fact that dip-
lomatic relations do not exist between Australia and the
U.S.S.R. is not the fault of the Soviet Union, but the result
of a notorious anti-Soviet campaign which did great harm
to relations between our two countries. The Soviet Union
has always advocated, and advocates today, the mainte-
nance of normal relations with every country, irrespective
of its political or social system. This applies equally to
Australia.

If the Australian Government, on its part, wishes diplo-
matic relations between our countries to be normalized,
we on our part are ready to do so. Incidentally, talks have
already taken place between the Australian and Soviet
Ambassadors in Washington on the question of establish-
ing normal diplomatic relations between our two coun-
tries; as a result of this in the autumn of 1956 they agreed
upon the text, submitted by the Australian side, of a
joint communique on the resumption of activity of their
diplomatic representations in both countries. However, the
Australian Government up to now has not indicated its
readiness to have the text of this communique published
and, consequently, it is up to Australia to give the word.

Question: What proof has the Soviet Union to justify the
criticism of Australia's methods of administering New
Guinea, as a trustee of the United Nations? Is there any
connection between this criticism and the Soviet Union's
support for Indonesia's claims to Western New Guinea?

Answer: As a member of the Trusteeship Council, the So-
viet Union has advocated, and will continue to advocate,
the consistent application of the principles set out in the
United Nations Charter in respect of trust territories. The
Soviet Union is doing all it can in order, as laid down in
the United Nations Charter, to promote the political, eco-

497

nomic and social advancement of the inhabitants of the
trust territories, to encourage respect for human rights
and for fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction
as to race, sex, language or religion, and to promote the
development of trust territories towards self-government
and complete independence. And this is what determines
the attitude of the Soviet representative on the Trusteeship
Council.

The Indonesian Government's justified demands for the
return of Western Irian, ancient territory of Indonesia,
which was wrested from her by the colonialists, is an en-
tirely separate question. The Soviet Union fully supports
this legitimate demand of the Indonesian people.

Question: What are the prospects of trade between Aus-
tralia and the U.S.S.R., taking into account that the bulk
of Australian exports comprises wool and other raw ma-
terials?

Answer: As you know, up till 1954 there were normal
trade relations between the Soviet Union and Australia.
The Soviet Union favours the development of trade with
every country on the basis of equality and mutual
benefit. Therefore, if our relations with Australia are nor-
malized, trade between the Soviet Union and Australia
could undoubtedly be given considerable impetus. In
1957 the Soviet Union's foreign trade reached 33,000 mil-
lion rubles (over $8,000 million). The foreign trade of the
Soviet Union today is the sixth largest in the world, and
is conducted with more than seventy countries. It exports
a wide range of goods. Some of these are goods Austral-
ia normally imports, in particular oil and petroleum prod-
ucts, ferro-alloys, asbestos, sawn timber, products of
the paper and timber industries, potassium salts, tinned
salmon and crab, and also machinery and equipment. On
the other hand, certain goods which are among Australia's
regular exports, such as wool, which you have mentioned,
could be of interest to the Soviet Union.

Question: What are the prospects for improving contacts

498

between Australia and the U.S.S.R. in the cultural field?
For instance, is there any hope of a visit by the Russian
ballet? Which Australian artistes, scientific experts or
sportsmen would be most popular and welcome in Mos-
cow?

Answer: We regard cultural ties as an important means
of improving understanding and bringing peoples closer
together. We would therefore welcome the development of
contacts between the Soviet Union and Australia in the
field of culture.

We are aware that interest is shown in Australia in the
cultural, scientific and sports life of the Soviet Union.
Thus, ^for instance, we have received invitations from a
number of Australian organizations to send to Australia a
Russian ballet group, a song and dance ensemble, and in-
dividual artistes.

There is great interest in the Soviet Union in the cultur-
al, scientific and sports life of Australia. We would be most
happy to offer hospitality in the Soviet Union to Austra-
lian artistes, scientists and sportsmen.

There is no obstacle to the development of cultural ex-
changes between our countries, whether officially spon-
sored or through sports, cultural, scientific and other or-
ganizations. Naturally, the re-establishment of diplomatic
relations would create more normal conditions for such
contacts, in which both our countries are interested.

June 11, 1958.
Pravda, June 25, 1958

SPEECH

AT LUNCHEON OF AMBASSADORS

OF BANDUNG CONFERENCE COUNTRIES

IN HONOUR OF THE KING AND QUEEN OF NEPAL

June 23, 1958

Your Majesties,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Comrades,

It has become a splendid tradition to welcome eminent
guests from Asia and Africa who visit our country at a
special reception arranged by the Ambassadors of the
countries which took part in the historical Bandung Confer-
ence.

We whole-heartedly support this tradition and are hap-
py today together with you all Messrs. Ambassadors, once
again to welcome on behalf of the Soviet Government our
dear guests, Their Majesties the King and Queen of Nepal.

Your Majesty,

We are very happy that you have come to our country
on a friendly visit and have personally become acquainted
with the life of the Soviet people and with our accomplish-
ments in industry, agriculture and culture.

We regard your visit as proof of the further develop-
ment and strengthening of friendship and co-operation be-
tween our countries. In this connection I should like to note
that our Government greatly values your personal efforts,
which have been largely instrumental in establishing and
developing Soviet-Nepalese friendship and co-operation.

The relations between our countries are built on the
sound foundation of the well-known Five Principles of

500

Peaceful Co-existence and International Co-operation — the
Panch Shila — which were supported by and proclaimed
at the Bandung Conference and which are now winning
increasingly wide recognition as the basis for relations
between countries with different social systems. It may be
said without exaggeration that today the Five Principles
are becoming the universally recognized standard for in-
ternational relations.

The Soviet Union's foreign policy is clear. We stand for
stable and lasting peace and for broad co-operation with
all countries of the world, regardless of their social and
economic systems. And it is with a feeling of friendship
that we regard all states, and peoples who are working for
the great cause of peace.

The Soviet people have been following with great sym-
pathy the efforts of the Nepalese people in fulfilling plans
for the economic and cultural development of their coun-
try and also for the strengthening of Nepal's ties with
other countries.

The Soviet Government regards the strengthening of re-
lations with the Kingdom of Nepal as yet another step
forward in the development and extension of its ties with
the Bandung Conference countries. This is a healthy and
natural process which is leading to an extension of the
peace zone.

I would like to hope that the visit of Your Majesties
to the Soviet Union will be conducive to the further devel-
opment of friendly ties between the U.S.S.R. and Nepal,
which is entirely in the interests of the Soviet and Nepa-
lese peoples.

To the health of Your Majesties, of all our esteemed
Nepalese guests, and of the Ambassadors, whom I thank
for the invitation to attend this very pleasant gathering!
To the prosperity and happiness of the Nepalese people,
to Soviet-Nepalese friendship, and to the strengthening of
the solidarity of the Asian and African countries and to
world peace!

501

SPEECH

WELCOMING ANTONIN NOVOTNY,

FIRST SECRETARY OF CENTRAL COMMITTEE

OF COMMUNIST PARTY OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA

AND PRESIDENT OF CZECHOSLOVAK REPUBLIC

July 2, 1958

Dear Comrade Novotny,

Dear Comrades and Friends,

Allow me on behalf of the Central Committee of the
C.P.S.U., the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the
U.S.S.R. and the Soviet Government, on behalf of the en-
tire Soviet people, to welcome you heartily in our capi-
tal— Moscow.

The visit to the Soviet Union of Comrade Novotny, First
Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party
of Czechoslovakia and President of the Czechoslovak Re-
public, is a big and joyous event for our Party and all the
Soviet people. The Soviet people know you well and re-
spect you deeply, dear Comrade Novotny, as an outstand-
ing leader of the revolutionary working-class movement
and tireless fighter for socialism, for peace.

We also heartily welcome the prominent leaders of the
Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and the Czechoslovak
Government who have come with you— Comrade Vaclav
Kopecky, member of the Political Bureau of the Central
Committee of the Czechoslovak Communist Party and Dep-
uty Chairman of the Government, Comrade Rudolf Ba-
rak, member of the Political Bureau and Minister of In-
terior, Comrade Jifi Hendrych, member of the Political
Bureau and Secretary of the C.C., Comrade Rudolf Strehai,

502

candidate to the Political Bureau of the C.C., Chairman of
the Corps of Representatives of Slovakia, and Comrade
Vaclav David, member of the C.C. and Minister of Foreign
Affairs,

Dear comrades, in your persons we greet the glorious
Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, which holds high the
victorious banner of Marxism-Leninism, and the fraternal
peoples of socialist Czechoslovakia who have enduring
bonds of long-standing inviolable friendship with the So-
viet people.

You have come to our country at an auspicious moment
in Czechoslovak history. The 11th Congress of the Com-
munist Party of Czechoslovakia, which has drawn up a
programme of completing the building of socialism in your
country in the next few years, closed a few days ago. The
Soviet people received the results of your congress with
a sense of profound satisfaction. The completion of social-
ist construction in Czechoslovakia will have a tremendous
international impact. Your successes in building social-
ism go to strengthen the might of the socialist camp and
cement the forces of peace and democracy throughout the
world.

This is not the first time we meet as close friends and
brothers brought together by the great ideas of commu-
nism, the ideas of peace and people's happiness. It is good
to know that your present visit, just as our fre-
quent meetings in the past, is not bound up with the need
of settling any controversial questions and misunderstand-
ings, because such controversial questions have never ex-
isted and do not exist now.

The friendship between our countries, based on principles
of proletarian internationalism and all-round mutual sup-
port, accords with the basic vital interests of our peoples,
the interests of the socialist camp as a whole. At the same
time, this cordial and inviolable friendship helps to
strengthen the peace in Europe and the world.

We do not doubt that during your stay in the Soviet

BOB

Union you will again see how profound and sincere are
the sentiments of love and friendship which the Soviet
people have for the peoples of Czechoslovakia.

Allow me, dear friends, to express the trust that your
arrival in the Soviet Union will contribute to a still great-
er strengthening of fraternal relations and co-operation
between our Communist parties, between the peoples of the
Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia.

For our part, we shall do our best for you to feel at
home in our country.

Welcome, dear friends!

(Stormy applause. Cheers for inviolable Soviet-Czecho-
slovak friendship.)

SPEECH

AT GRAND KREMLIN PALACE DINNER IN HONOUR

OF COMRADE ANTONIN NOVOTNY,

PRESIDENT OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA

July 2, 1958

Dear Comrade Novotny,

Comrades and Friends,

Permit me, dear guests from fraternal Czechoslovakia,
again to bid you a hearty welcome.

It is good and heartening to meet genuine friends. Such
meetings are always imbued with great human warmth
and deep cordiality. We, representatives of the peoples of
socialist countries, are brought together by our common
goals and the identity of our views, by our joint struggle
for socialism and peace. We meet as fellow-Communists.
We are proud of the outstanding successes achieved by the
fraternal family of socialist nations in building our new
society.

The rulers of the imperialist camp also have some views
in common. Their minds work in a single direction: how
to wipe the socialist states off the face of the earth, de-
stroy communism as the ideal of hundreds of millions of
working people, and perpetuate exploitation and oppres-
sion of the working man. But just as a pig is not endowed
by Nature to see the sky, so the imperialist designs of de-
stroying the socialist countries are not destined to be real-
ized.

Whenever it comes to dealings between capitalist states,
between monopoly combines, the imperialists no longer

$05

tread common ground. Anyone who feels strong enough
tries to grab more than the others, to bear down upon
them, to dictate his will to them.

The friendship and unity of the socialist countries have
a different foundation. The peoples of our countries have
set themselves the goal of building a classless society
that rules out exploitation of man by man, where men
are not divided into rich and poor and there is an abun-
dance of everything man needs — a society in which sci-
ence and technology, literature and art, will climb to
unheard-of heights.

And the closer our countries stand together, the more
concerted our efforts, and the more we help each other,
the quicker communism will triumph. Along the path to
this, man's happy morrow, there can be no competition, no
struggle between us of whatever form. On the contrary,
we march along this path in a united front and the suc-
cess of one socialist country can only cause joy to the peo-
ples of the other countries, for it brings them nearer to our
common goal.

The Soviet people, who were the first in man's history
to blaze the highroad to socialism, heartily welcome the deci-
sion of the 1 1th Congress of the Communist Party of Czecho-
slovakia to complete the building of socialism in that
country in the next few years. From the bottom of their
hearts, the Soviet people wish their blood-brothers, the
working people of Czechoslovakia, every success in this
great and noble undertaking.

There can be no doubt that the hard-working and gifted
people of Czechoslovakia will, under the guidance of their
militant Communist Party, honourably fulfil the pro-
gramme charted by the Communist Party.

Permit me to make a toast to the successes of Czecho-
slovakia's working people in building the new life, to
their completing the building of socialism in the Czecho-
slovak Republic, to its further progress!

To the heroic Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and
its Central Committee!

To the Government of the Czechoslovak Republic!

To the health of the First Secretary of the Central Com-
mittee of the Czechoslovak Communist Party, President
of the Czechoslovak Republic, Comrade Antonin Novotny!

To the health of our Czechoslovak friends who have
come here with Comrade Novotny!

To the health of all those present here!

To the everlasting and inviolable friendship of our peo-
ples!

SPEECH

AT U.S.S.R.-CZECHOSLOVAKIA

FRIENDSHIP MEETING IN LENINGRAD

July 4, 1958

Dear Leningrad Comrades,

We are gathered here today in Leningrad's historic Pal-
ace Square to extend a brotherly welcome to our dear
guests, the leaders of fraternal socialist Czechoslovakia.
(Prolonged applause*)

We heartily welcome Comrade Antonin Novotny, the
First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Commu-
nist Party of Czechoslovakia, President of the Czechoslovak
Republic, an outstanding leader of the communist move-
ment and our true friend, who has come to the Soviet
Union on a friendly visit. (Stormy applause.)

We are happy to greet heartily the prominent Party and
Government leaders of Czechoslovakia who have come
with Comrade Novotny — our dear friends Comrade Vaclav
Kopecky (applause), Comrade Rudolf Barak (applause),
Comrade Jifi Hendrych (applause), Comrade Rudolf Stre-
haj (applause), Comrade Vaclav David (applause), and
the other comrades. (Applause.)

The Soviet people are fond of Leningrad. We know that
our foreign friends also deeply respect this fine city. And
not just because it is a beautiful city and has a wealth of
striking architectural ensembles, historical monuments
and institutions of art. People want to see it above all be-
cause Leningrad is the cradle of the Great October Social-

508

ist Revolution, the greatest revolution of all times and
all nations. (Prolonged applause.)

This city, which bears the great Lenin's name, is the city
of one of the foremost detachments of the Soviet work-
ing class. Throughout the history of the Soviet state the
fine people of Leningrad have always stood in the front
ranks of the builders of socialism in our country. The
feats of Leningrad working people— staunch defenders of
our Soviet homeland in the Civil War and the Great Pa-
triotic War of the Soviet people .against the fascist oppres-
sors—will never fade from our memory.

Today, when our Czechoslovak friends are in Leningrad,
I should like to speak again about the tremendous devel-
opment of the socialist forces, whose triumph and advance
began here in October 1917. Just a bit over 40 years have
passed since the October Revolution. That is not a very
long time. It fits into the life of a single generation. But
what striking changes have taken place in the Soviet Union
in this time, just as in the whole world! Socialism has
been established in our country for the first time in man's
history, and it has become a mighty socialist Power.

The history of this period is the history of the emergence
and rapid growth of socialism as a social and government
system, first in one country, the Soviet Union, and then
in a number of other countries comprising the now power-
ful socialist camp.

It is a joy to know that we live in a wonderful time, and
that a wide and remarkable road— the road to happiness,
prosperity and a bright future— has been opened to the
working people by socialism.

What grand prospects confront us! Our Party and the
Soviet Government are taking important measures to ac-
celerate the development of the key industries and steeply
raise agriculture, to perfect the management of industry
and building, and to further improve the living and cul-
tural standards of the people. The impact of these meas-
ures goes far beyond the frontiers of our country, be-

509

cause they help very greatly to consolidate the forces and
the international prestige of the entire socialist camp, to
cement the forces of socialism and peace throughout the
world.

The fact that the Soviet Union has considerably out-
stripped the capitalist countries in the rates of growth of
total industrial and agricultural production, that it has
forged ahead into second place in the world for industrial
output, and that it is steadily catching up the most devel-
oped capitalist country, the United States— all this is add-
ing to the confidence of the peoples of the socialist camp
and of the world working-class movement in the inevi-
table triumph of socialism and communism. Small wonder
that these successes are causing consternation in the
West!

Hostile propaganda is obviously in a tight spot, one
absurdity succeeding another in its evaluation of social-
ist economic developments. It either howls about "crisis"
in some economic branch of our country or, compelled to
speak about Soviet economic successes, the achievements
of Soviet science and technology, switches to warnings
about the "danger" to the West of the rapid growth of
Soviet economy and culture.

And people in the capitalist countries are coming to
see the falsehood of bourgeois information about the So-
viet Union and the other socialist countries. They are com-
ing to realize how far these countries have advanced in
their development.

It is not just radio-signals and reflected sunbeams that
the Soviet artificial earth satellites send to earth. They
have proclaimed to all men the heights achieved by the
world of socialism, liberated from the bonds of capital-
ism. To see these achievements there is no need for the
powerful telescopes without which you cannot see the space
"oranges." You need simply to look up into the sky at
the hour when the Soviet sputnik or its carrier-rocket hurtle

510

past in the atmospheric ocean above our planet. (Stormy
applause.)

Comrades, our dear Czechoslovak friends have come to
us soon after the closing of the 11th Congress of the Com-
munist Party of Czechoslovakia, which summed up the
creative endeavour of Czechoslovakia's working people
and the organizational effort of the Communist Party. The
congress has unanimously drawn the historic conclusion
that the foundations of socialism have essentially been laid
in Czechoslovakia and that the country has all it needs to
complete the building of socialism in the next few years.

The Soviet people congratulate their Czechoslovak
friends, the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, the fra-
ternal peoples of Czechoslovakia, on this great victory
from the bottom of their hearts. (Stormy applause.)

One can scarcely exaggerate the tremendous importance
of socialist successes in Czechoslovakia. All the People's
Democracies have made such great progress in socialist
construction that now the time is not far distant when,
on completing the building of socialism, they will follow
the Soviet Union in the gradual transition from socialism
to communism, to man's bright future dreamed of for cen-
turies by the leading minds of humanity.

The successes of the working people of the Chinese
People's Republic, Czechoslovakia and the other People's
Democracies striding confidently along the path of social-
ist development, are vivi.d testimony to the all-conquer-
ing power of Marxist-Leninist ideas.

A proper understanding and application of the basic
principles of Marxism-Leninism, the general laws of so-
cialist revolution and the experience of fraternal Commu-
nist parties in the concrete conditions of their country —
that is the reliable compass, using which the Communist
Party of Czechoslovakia and the other fraternal parties
lead their peoples to brilliant triumphs.

We are firmly convinced that under the leadership of
their glorious Communist Party, the peoples of Czechoslo-

511

vakia will in a short time achieve new progress in indus-
try, agriculture and culture, and solve the historic task
of completing socialist construction in their country in
the next few years.

From the bottom of our hearts we wish our Czecho-
slovak brothers success in this great undertaking. (Pro-
longed applause.)

Relations of genuinely fraternal inviolable friendship
exist between the peoples of the Soviet Union and the
Czechoslovak Republic. The friendship of our peoples, of
our Communist parties, is based on the immortal ideas of
Leninism, which illumine mankind's path to a happy fu-
ture, to communism.

We are the pupils and successors of the great Lenin.
Everything Vladimir Ilyich Lenin had ever done served the
interests of the working people, those ordinary people
whose hands have created all the good things on earth.
Lenin's profound and consistent internationalism was a
characteristic feature of his entire activity.

We never forget the profoundly creative nature of Len-
in's work. Nobody knew better than Lenin how to apply
the lessons of practical experience, to spot the new that is
nurtured by life. And he always did his best to help this
new to make headway. Lenin always showed the maximum
of flexibility and skill in carrying out Party policy, but he
could not be budged when it came to the basic principles
of revolutionary theory, any deviation from which could
inflict irremediable damage to the working-class cause.

All Lenin's activities were imbued with trust in the
strength of the working class, the working masses. It is
solely with the conscious support of the bulk of the work-
ing people, making the best of their experience and initia-
tive, that the ideas of socialism can triumph.

Loyalty to Lenin's teachings is a guarantee of our suc-
cess. The Communist and Workers' parties are success-
fully solving complex problems of socialist construction
by skilfully and creatively applying the Marxist-Leninist

512

teaching to the concrete circumstances of their countries.
That the peoples of Czechoslovakia have achieved great
successes is to be explained principally by the fact that
the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia has adhered con-
sistently to Lenin's teachings in its daily practical activ-
ities.

Comrades, the fraternal contacts and co-operation of the
socialist countries, the unity of the international commu-
nist movement, are gaining new strength every day. The
fraternal Communist and Workers' parties are putting up
a determined stand against all attempts— whoever may
make them — to undermine this Leninist unity and weaken
the forces of world socialism.

It is to be deplored that the leaders of the League of
Communists of Yugoslavia, a country whose people have
shed much blood for the triumph of socialist ideas and
the friendship and brotherhood of nations, should have un-
dertaken the unseemly role of splitters.

Everybody knows how much was done by our Party and
other fraternal parties in recent years to find a principled
solution to the differences and to establish co-operation
with the Yugoslav League of Communists on the basis of
Marxist-Leninist principles. It was this purpose that we
and other fraternal parties had in mind when we made
our principled criticism of the draft programme of the
Yugoslav League of Communists. We have told the lead-
ers of the Yugoslav League of Communists in all frank-
ness that they have taken the dangerous path of revising
the basic propositions of Marxism-Leninism and under-
mining the unity of the international communist move-
ment. But how did the leaders of the Yugoslav League
of Communists react to this criticism? They raised a howl
about the Communist and Workers' parties "interfering"
in Yugoslavia's internal affairs and applying pressure to
the Yugoslav League of Communists.

The Yugoslav leaders are manoeuvring clumsily and try-
ing to prove that the Soviet Union and the other countries

513

of the socialist camp are allegedly conducting "an organ-
ized campaign against Yugoslavia," acting against the
Yugoslav people. Only he who, after a Russian proverb,
wants to "becloud a clear day" could claim anything of
this sort.

We have said repeatedly, and say again, that no one
has ever conducted, or intends to conduct, any "campaign"
against Yugoslavia and her peoples. But we have waged,
and shall continue to wage, a consistent and principled
struggle against all individuals and groups preaching
anti-Marxist, revisionist views under the guise of "devel-
oping" the theory and practice of scientific socialism. That
is our duty, our sacred duty. The great Lenin has taught
us to do so.

Comrades, more than 40 years have passed since the
Great October Socialist Revolution. And throughout this
time the imperialists have not for a moment ceased their
efforts to destroy the socialist world. The cold war against
the socialist countries, launched by aggressive groups in
some Western states, is now more than 10 years old. The
makers of the policy "from strength" are not giving up
their hopes of splitting the ranks of the socialist countries
and of intimidating them with their atomic weapons, their
military economic potential, their military bases.

Yet it is high time for them to realize, at long last, how
futile their efforts are! (Applause.)

Lately, spokesmen of ruling circles in the Western coun-
tries have made statements to the effect that the only way
out of the present situation is to step up the armaments
race still more, which, they claim, may lead to an economic
upturn. Reasoning of this kind is extremely dangerous.
Some Western statesmen apparently fail to take account
of the possible consequences of their political game.

The behaviour of the proponents of the armaments race
is reminiscent of the man who set lire to his neighbour's
flat to warm his hands, forgetting that he himself lived
in the same house. (Laughter, applause.)

514

It is to be hoped that sooner or later Western ruling cir-
cles will be compelled to understand this fact and to assess
realistically the situation and balance of forces in the world.
(Applause.)

The only way to preserve peace is by peaceful co-exist-
ence. The forces of the socialist camp, all people of
good will in all countries, stand guard over peace. And
however much the imperialists may rave and rant, the
cause we stand for is unconquerable. (Stormy applause.)

We are happy that in this struggle for socialism, peace
and democracy, the peoples of Czechoslovakia, whose rep-
resentatives we welcome here today so joyously and
heartily, are standing by us. (Prolonged applause.) No
friendship is stronger than the friendship of the socialist
peoples, the friendship sealed with the blood shed by our
peoples in joint battles against fascism, the friendship
sealed with the great ideas of communism. (Stormy ap-
plause.)

Let us then tirelessly cement our friendship and co-
operation with the peoples of fraternal Czechoslovakia,
the unity and solidarity of all the countries of the mighty
socialist camp! (Stormy applause.)

Long live ana flourish the peoples of the socialist Czecho-
slovak Republic! (Stormy applause. Cries: "Hurrah!")

Long live the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and
its Leninist Central Committee headed by Comrade Anto-
nin Novotny! (Stormy applause. Cries: "Hurrah!")

Long live Leninism! (Stormy applause. Cries: "Hur-
rah!")

Long live world peace! (Stormy, prolonged applause.
Cries: "Hurrah!", "Long live Soviet-Czechoslovak friend-
ship!")

SPEECH

ON ARRIVAL IN BERLIN OF C.P.S.U. DELEGATION

TO 5th CONGRESS OF SOCIALIST UNITY PARTY

OF GERMANY

July 8, 1958

Dear Comrade Ulbricht,

Dear Comrade Grotewohl,

Dear Comrades and Friends,

Allow me to convey to you and all the working people
of the German Democratic Republic the hearty fraternal
greetings of the Communist Party and the workers,
peasants and intelligentsia of the Soviet Union, and to
thank you from the bottom of our hearts for your warm
welcome.

We express our profound thanks to the Central Com-
mittee of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany for invit-
ing a delegation of the C.P.S.U. to the 5th Congress of
the Socialist Unity Party of Germany. The Central Com-
mittee of our Party was very happy to accept this invita-
tion. As we step on German soil today, we know that we
have come to our friends and fellow-fighters for peace, de-
mocracy and socialism.

We have come to the 5th Congress of the Socialist Uni-
ty Party of Germany eager to strengthen still further the
fraternal relations between our Marxist-Leninist parties
and between our peoples, who are building socialism and
communism.

There exist good, friendly relations, complete under-
standing and confidence between our parties. The Soviet

516

people are aware of the warm sentiments and sympathies
that the working people of the German Democratic Repub-
lic have for the Soviet people. You, too, have unques-
tionably had occasion many times to see that in the
common struggle for socialism and the preservation and
consolidation of world peace the German working peo-
ple have a loyal friend and fellow-fighter in the Soviet
people.

Our Party and the peoples of the Soviet Union show a
lively interest in the changes taking place in Germany.
They rejoice at every new achievement of the workers,
peasants and intellectuals of the German Democratic Re-
public in building a new state— the first workers' and
peasants' state in the history of Germany.

There is deep satisfaction over the growing interna-
tional ties of your republic, its increasing friendship with
all the countries of the socialist camp, in whose fraternal
family the German Democratic Republic occupies a fitting
place.

We are sincerely happy that the working people of the
German Democratic Republic, all the progressive forces
brought together in the National Front of democratic Ger-
many under the leadership of the working class and its
militant vanguard — the Socialist Unity Party — are fight-
ing confidently and persistently against the militarization
of West Germany and the arming of the Bundeswehr with
atomic and rocket weapons, for the country's peaceful
reunification on a democratic basis, for safeguarding
and strengthening peace and friendship among the peo-
ples.

Allow me, dear comrades, to wish you new labour suc-
cesses in building socialism in the German Democratic
Republic.

Long live peace, friendship and co-operation between
the Soviet and German peoples!

Long live the German Democratic Republic and its
working people!

517

Long live the Socialist Unity Party of Germany — the
leader of the working people of the German Democratic
Republic!

(N. S. Khrushchov's speech was repeatedly interrupted
by stormy applause, shouts of "Hurrah!" and wishes of
long life to Soviet-German friendship, the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union and the Socialist Unity Party
of Germany.)

SPEECH

AT MASS MEETING IN HALLE DURING STAY

OF C.P.S.U. DELEGATION TO 5th CONGRESS

OF SOCIALIST UNITY PARTY OF GERMANY

IN GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

July 8, 1958

Dear Comrades,

We are extremely pleased to attend your mass meeting
and to meet the workers, intellectuals and working people
of Halle — one of the biggest industrial centres of the Ger-
man Democratic Republic. Permit me on behalf of the
delegation of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union,
the Central Committee of our Party, to greet you warmly
as our loyal friends and allies. (Stormy, prolonged ap-
plause.)

Permit me to thank you for the kind sentiments ad-
dressed here to the working class, the working people of
the Soviet Union and to our Communist Party. (Prolonged
applause.)

Comrades, you know that our Party and Government
are doing their best to ensure world peace. (Applause.)
We have made many good proposals to that end. If these
proposals had been accepted, they would unquestionably
have helped to ease international tension and achieve last-
ing peace. (Stormy applause.) But, as you know, every
time we make such proposals, the enemies of peace, like
pettifoggers, look for a pretext to reject them. When
we say that relations between the socialist and capitalist
countries should be built upon the principles of peaceful
co-existence, highly placed leaders in the capitalist coiuv

519

tries not infrequently declare that they do not want to co-
exist with the socialist states. But what does that imply?
After all, we live on the same planet. It implies that some
of the states should remove elsewhere from this planet.
(Laughter, applause). We say that since there are states
with different systems on our planet, they can and must
co-exist, that is, they must live without war and not at-
tack each other. (Stormy applause, shouts of approval.)

We do not interfere, and have no wish to interfere, in
the affairs of other countries. Let us by all means have
a trial of strength, but rather in peaceful competition than
in war. Let the young, burgeoning, rising socialist coun-
tries compete with the old, senile capitalist world, and let
us see who takes the upper hand, who wins. (Animation,
stormy applause.)

Capitalist propaganda insisted that if the workers and
peasants took power they would not know how to govern,
how to organize production. If that is so, Messrs. Capital-
ists, you need not fear peaceful competition with socialism.
You know how, and we do not. Hence, you will have an
easier time. (Laughter.)

Admittedly, people who used to say that the working
people are incapable of running a state are dying out in
the capitalist countries. They kept expecting all the time
that Soviet power would soon collapse, and claiming that
communism was going through a crisis. But now the whole
world knows where the crisis is, and where prosperity. (Ap-
plause.)

The Soviet Union, for example, is going to build seven
blast furnaces this year and thereby alone increase the
output of pig iron by more than four and a half million
tons. (Applause.) We shall see by how much the capitalist
countries increase their pig iron output! Where is the cri-
sis then? (Stormy applause.)

We pick our words with care and do not speak of the

capitalist countries the wav imperialist propaganda babbles

about our socialist system. We do not underestimate the

520

powers of capitalism for we know that it is still strong.
This is why we must rally the forces of the working class.
But we know equally well that victory will rest with the
working class, that the working class will win. (Stormy
applause, shouts of approval.)

Comrades, we are raising the rates of socialist con-
struction from year to year. The socialist countries are
getting stronger each year and the friendship between
them is growing and hardening. Yugoslavia alone stands
apart. We have done, and continue to do, a lot for it to
fall in step with all the socialist countries. But the Yugo-
slav leaders are against it and speak of some road of
their own, while seeking support in American hand-outs.
That road is not for us, however. We are accustomed to
building socialism by combating capitalism. (Stormy ap-
plause.)

Take the Soviet Union, for example. In the 40 years
of its development it has travelled a long way. Yet what
did people say about us in the past? The exploiters stated,
for instance, that if the working class took power, science
stood to lose by it. However, whose earth satellites does
the world see today? They are Soviet earth satellites!
(Stormy applause.) The Americans launched three of their
orange-size sputniks. (Laughter.) But their sputniks are
a hundred times smaller than the third Soviet sputnik.

And what does that imply? It implies that Soviet sci-
ence has surpassed American achievements. That is a big
victory for us, comrades! It is an expression of the will
of the working class and the wisdom of the communist
movement. (Stormy applause, shouts of "Hurrah!")

Herr Adenauer knows that I have come to vou, to your
republic. He and I met when we negotiated in Moscow. He
is still doting on his policy "from positions of strength.*'
But that strength exists solely in his imagination. We do
not recognize strength, but the right of the working class,
of the working people, the right of nations to fashion their
life after their own pattern. It is he who creates values,

he who works, that must have at his disposal the fruits
of his labours. (Stormy applause.)

Herr Adenauer does not recognize the existence of the
German Democratic Republic. Well, we can't help that!
(Laughter.) The U.S.A. does not recognize the existence
of the Chinese People's Republic. But People's China has
not ceased to exist on account of that. The United States
had for a long time failed to recognize the Soviet Union
as well. But for all that the Soviet Union did not cease
to exist, and ultimately the United States was compelled
to recognize the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

If a blind man who has never seen the sun is told about
sunshine, he will not appreciate it anyway, and will say
that there is no such thing as the sun's light. Likewise
the hangers-on of capital do not want to concede that so-
cialism has come to replace capitalism. They stubbornly
refuse to concede that.

But they are finding it more and more difficult to deny
the achievements of socialism. The socialist countries are
raising their economy higher and higher every day.

Naturally, our countries also have the necessary armed
forces to guard the socialist countries which are well able
to defend their freedom and independence, their gains,
from any enemy attack. Our countries maintain armies not
for attack, but for defence. We are prepared to disarm at
any time and, as you know, are taking steps towards
disarmament. We shall defeat capitalism without war.
We shall defeat it in peaceful competition, by our labour.
(Stormy applause.)

I want to console Herr Adenauer: we believe that if to-
day it is only the German Democratic Republic that is so-
cialist, the time will come when all Germany will follow
the socialist path, and not just Germany, but the entire
world. Socialism will not conquer its positions by war.
The working class, the working people of Germany and
other countries, will ultimately triumph. Our sympathies
are with the working class, with the working people, in

522

their struggle for the future, for socialism and commu-
nism. (Prolonged applause.)

Comrades, the 5th Congress of the Socialist Unity Party
of Germany is opening on July 10. Our delegation has
come to it at the invitation of your Central Committee. We
believe that your 5th Congress is going to be very fruit-
ful and that after it the working class will rally still clos-
er round the Socialist Unity Party, which represents the
vital interests of the working class, the working peasantry,
and the intellectuals of Germany. (Applause.)

Long live the German working class!

Long live the working people of Germany!

Long live the friendship between the peoples of the So-
viet Union and Germany!

Long live world peace!

I wish you success, dear friends! (Stormy, prolonged
applause. The people scan: "Friendship!" Cries: "Hurrah!")

SPEECH

AT MEETING HELD IN PALACE OF CULTURE

OF BITTERFELD ELECTRO-CHEMICAL WORKS

DURING STAY IN G.D.R. OF C.P.S.U. DELEGATION

TO 5th CONGRESS

OF SOCIALIST UNITY PARTY OF GERMANY

July 9, 1958

Dear Comrades and Friends,

Allow me, on behalf of our delegation, to express our
sincere gratitude for the hearty welcome you have giv-
en us.

Comrade Schirmer, the director of the works, in his
splendid report has said many flattering things about the
Soviet Union. We are particularly pleased to note that he
correctly understands the need for uniting the efforts of
the German people with those of the peoples of the Soviet
Union and the other socialist countries for the achievement
of the speediest economic development of our countries
and the attainment of a high standard of living for our
working people.

I would like to outline some of my views on a number
of specific questions. Let us take, if you will, the develop-
ment of the chemical industry in the Soviet Union and the
German Democratic Republic.

In order to co-ordinate our efforts in making more
rational use of the material resources of our countries for
the rapid development of the chemical industry, we must,
in the first place, give thought to such a very important
matter as co-operation and specialization in production
processes. The German Democratic Republic possesses no
large power resources and has scarcely any water

524

power. You have brown coal, of which you are making
good use.

Other socialist countries, however, have power resources
richer than brown coal. The Soviet Union, for example,
has tremendous, still untapped resources of water power.
Moreover, we have great potentialities for using coal for
the production of power. In the Krasnoyarsk area, for in-
stance, coal deposits have been discovered which extend
for nearly 1,000 kilometres, with seams up to 100 metres
in thickness. Coal can be strip-mined there by excavators.
Experts say that if thermal power plants are built there,
the electricity will be almost as cheap as that generated
by hydroelectric power stations.

The question therefore arises: Should we not give
thought to developing the chemical industry in our coun-
tries on the basis of a division of labour? Chemical enter-
prises with processes which consume most power should
be situated in places where power is cheaper, so that raw
materials may be produced there, while factories for the
manufacture of finished goods should be developed in
places where skilled manpower, engineering and technical
personnel and chemists are available. This will enable our
fraternal countries to make better use of human labour,
raw material and power resources, and to ensure the pro-
duction of high-quality goods at a lower cost.

I am not an engineer and consequently I cannot tell you
precisely how this can be done. Let chemical experts,
scientists, engineers and economists work out the most
advantageous way of organizing this and then we shall,
by taking into account the interests of our two countries,
find the most correct solution to this problem. In any case,
we can definitely say that the accomplishment of this task
will be of tremendous significance and will be of great
economic advantage, both for the German Democratic Re-
public and for the Soviet Union, as well as for all our
fraternal countries.

I should like to offer one more consideration. It is a fact

525

that the Germans have made a remarkable contribution
to the development of chemistry. They accomplished ahead
of all others the task of industrially producing from coal
a liquid fuel which is not inferior in quality to the petrol
obtained from oil. At the time the rapid accomplishment
of this task was dictated by strategic considerations, be-
cause Germany was then preparing for war. In our age
of motors, war could not be waged without petrol— the mo-
tors would be still. That is why attention and effort in
Germany were concentrated on carrying out this task. It
must be said that it was done well.

The situation has now changed, and we should examine
how economically expedient it is to produce liquid fuel
from coal. It may be economically more profitable to
switch over your plants producing liquid fuel to oil refin-
ing and thus obtain petrol for the economy at a consider-
ably lower cost. Is it not possible to reduce the cost of pro-
ducing liquid fuel and, furthermore, to obtain by-products
for the development of the chemical industry at a lower
cost? It would seem that this too should be given thought.
The reserves of oil in the Soviet Union are almost limit-
less and output is increasing every year. Our specialists
are discovering more and more new oil deposits which
makes possible a substantial increase in oil production.
This means that we can supply the German Democratic
Republic with the necessary quantities of oil.

Today the socialist countries cannot operate their econ-
omies in isolation, within the framework of each individ-
ual country alone. It is necessary to develop and improve
co-operation so as to most rationally utilize the natural
wealth and economic resources that are available in the
socialist countries.

Even within the limits of a single country, co-operation
and specialization are of huge importance. Let us take
coal mining, for instance. If we take production costs per
ton of coal mined in the Donbas, they will probably be
three to five times greater than in Kemerovo or Krasno-

526

yarsk. That is why we are now emphasizing the develop-
ment of power-consuming industries in the eastern areas,
where coal is mined at lower cost.

In the Donbas, coal is mined by combines and coal-cut-
ting machines, and the seams there are often only half a
metre in thickness, whereas in the Krasnoyarsk area, as I
have already said, the seams measure up to 100 metres.
The coal there lies on the surface, and it can be scooped
up by excavators and loaded directly into railway wagons.
Naturally this is more advantageous.

That is how matters stand in the Soviet Union. But
today our country is not alone. The camp of socialist coun-
tries is growing and becoming stronger. And we should
take into account not only the interests of one country
but the interests of all the socialist countries. When I was
speaking about co-operation between the chemical indus-
tries of the Soviet Union and the German Democratic Re-
public, I had in mind the interests not only of our country,
but also those of the German Democratic Republic and
the other socialist countries. Such co-operation will be
mutually advantageous for our countries.

Naturally we understand mutual benefit differently from
Comrade Tito. We have rendered, and shall continue to
render, assistance to the socialist countries in developing
their economies so that all can go forward together more
quickly, giving each other support. {Stormy applause.)

Allow me to dwell on the question of pooling our efforts
in developing science and technology, in the fields of en-
gineering and technological work and designing. Professor
Schirmer spoke well about this in his report. We have to
unite and to concentrate our efforts in these fields as well.
You possess a highly developed chemical science and chem-
ical industry. I mean no offence, dear comrades, but we
shall certainly catch up with you. (Stormy applause.)

I am glad you approve of this intention of ours. This
is understandable enough, for there are no antagonistic

527

contradictions between our countries. We have common
aims and tasks: to build socialism and communism. There-
fore let us apply our forces, as they say in physics, to a
single point, so that they may act in one direction and not
cancel each other out, but grow. Then, with smaller out-
lays we shall obtain better results and ensure a still high-
er rate of development in the chemical industry and in
the whole of the national economy.

The appropriate agencies of our states, after making a
careful preliminary study of these questions, should come
to an understanding on how to practically organize co-
operation between the enterprises of the chemical indus-
tries of our countries. We should give thought to defining
the problems which the German comrades will undertake
to work out, the questions which are to be worked out by
the Soviet side, and those which should be tackled
jointly.

Comrades, the development of the chemical industry
calls for experienced personnel — scientists and engineers.
We have such personnel. But we would gladly enlist the
services of German chemical engineers and scientists and
other specialists, including experts from West Germany,
for work in our chemical industry. West German special-
ists may say that their political convictions and views dif-
fer from ours. But let them set aside questions of political
conviction. If a scientist or engineer does not share com-
munist views and communist convictions, let him keep his
own convictions and come to us simply as a chemist or
scientist. If he really wants to achieve the best results
from the application of his labour, we shall offer him every
opportunity for doing so. We shall pay him more than the
richest concerns and firms are paying. We shall provide
s"ch scientists, engineers and technicians with the finest
equipment for the tackling of scientific and technical prob-
lems.

We shall do this for those persons who wish to stay out
of politics and to act only on the basis of material consid-

528

erations. But if one bears in mind political considera-
tions as well, it must be said quite categorically that the
most profitable "undertaking" in which material resources
may be invested is in the building of communism. This
"undertaking" is developing without crises and to it be-
longs the future. (Applause.)

The main thing to be borne in mind is the noble aims
and principles of communism J Under capitalism man is to
man a wolf. Every capitalist wants to snatch more for
himself, caring nothing about the interests of other peo-
ple or the interests of society, and he spies upon his neigh-
bour in order to steal his secret and use it for his own
ends. Such are the laws of capitalist competition.! Noth-
ing like this exists under socialism. Under socialism there
are no oppressors or oppressed; all men and women live
by their own labour, and all have equal rights and duties
to society. At the highest stage, under communism, the
full satisfaction of man's needs will be ensured. And these
are not idle words. Under socialism man is to man, a
friend regardless of the language he speaks and the God
to whom he prays. Religion is a matter for each person to
decide for himself.

Socialism is the most just and noble social system,
under which the efforts of the whole of society are aimed
at promoting the welfare of the people and the constant
development of the economy, science, culture and art, at
ensuring that the people live better and better. It is well
worth working for these lofty aims, sparing neither effort
nor knowledge. In the language of Western businessmen,
one can figuratively describe the firm of communist con-
struction as sound and upright. (Stormy applause.)

However, in speaking now about co-operation with West
German specialists in developing the chemical industry
we are digressing, as it were, from this political aspect of
the question. It is, of course, good to deal with people who
are devoted, heart and soul, to building communism. If,
however, a person still has certain bacilli meandering

529

about in his head, which do not allow him to take a firm
stand and recognize the need to rebuild society on com-
munist lines, then let him continue with his ailment for a
while. Let us pay him well, give him a good salary, a
house in the country, and so on.

If a man works well and confers great benefits on so-
ciety, let him enjoy what he deserves. In a socialist so-
ciety such people are valued and properly remunerated.

The Soviet atomic experts and specialists who have
created the intercontinental rocket and the sputniks have
no complaint against their socialist country. They live so
well that God grant you a life like theirs, as the saying
goes! {Stormy applause.) The Soviet Government has re-
warded them and many of them have received Lenin Prizes
and the title of Hero of Socialist Labour. They are also
well provided for from the material point of view. They
"suffer" somewhat only in one respect — they are as yet
anonymous as far as the outside world is concerned. They
live, as it were, under the general designation of "scien-
tists and engineers working on atomics and rocketry." But
so far it is not widely known exactly who these people
are. We shall erect a monument in honour of those who
have created the rocket and the sputniks and shall inscribe
their glorious names in letters of gold, so that they may
be known to future generations throughout the ages. {Pro-
longed applause.)

Yes, when the time comes, the photographs and names
of these illustrious people will be made public and they
will become widely known to all men. We greatly value
these people; we treasure them and protect them from
enemy agents who might be sent in to destroy such out-
standing men — our treasured personnel. But today, in
order to ensure the country's security and the lives of
these scientists, engineers, technicians and other special-
ists, we cannot as yet make known their names or publish
their photographs. This, however, applies only to special-
ists who work in branches of technology and science

530

which are at present classed as state secrets. In all other
spheres scientists, engineers and specialists enjoy the-
widest renown in our society. The Soviet state and our
society know how to highly appreciate our scientists, engi-
neers, technicians and other specialists and fittingly reward
them for their work, which is of great social benefit.

I think that German specialists, too, could work in our
country under similarly good conditions. It is not neces-
sary for them to share our views in order to do so.

It is a fact that there are still scientists and specialists
in your republic who have not yet completely defined their
political attitude. In the past there were also people like
that in our country — the Soviet Union. This state of af-
fairs was very aptly described in a humorous story relat-
ing how a check-up of office employees was made in the
first years of the revolution in our country. Each employee
had to fill in a questionnaire which, among other things,
contained the following question: "Do you believe in God?"

One employee replied: "At work no, at home yes."
(Laughter, animation in the hall.)

My dear specialists, please don't be offended if I frankly
say that in your country, the German Democratic Repub-
lic, too, there are evidently still a certain number of such
office employees, scientists and engineers — people who, if
asked: "Are you for socialism or against it?" would say,
if they wished to be frank: "In the German Democratic
Republic we are for socialism, in Bonn we are against it."
(Burst of laughter. Applause.)

And so a man of that kind goes from Berlin to Bonn
and from Bonn to Berlin. He will continue shuttling back
and forth as long as he does not acquire a more accurate
and true compass. At present he is like a tiny boat on the
high seas. Without rudder or sail, it is tossed about by
the waves.

Such people, however, although at present without a po-
litical compass, are of value and a struggle for them is
being waged between the socialist and the capitalist coun-

531

tries. Many of these people are not attracted to political
ideas; they are more attracted, as the Americans say, to
business. So let us pay them well, pay them more than the
Americans pay, more than Bonn pays. And when they
work with us they will learn that we are not enemies.
Working together with us, such people will in action be-
come convinced that socialism is the most progressive so-
cial system and that communism is mankind's radiant
dream of the future.

The majority of those people who will at first march, or
who are marching, together with us because their work
is well remunerated in our socialist countries, will them-
selves not notice how, subsequently, they will come to
stand firmly on their own feet, acquire a political compass,
and, together with their own people, follow the road along
which the nation is being led by the Communist parties —
the road to communism! (Prolonged applause.)

Perhaps I am putting all this too baldly and perhaps
some of you are now applauding with everyone else only
for the sake of appearances, while thinking, deep down,
as the Russian saying has it: "No, brother, an old bird
isn't caught with chaff !" (Laughter in the hall.)

Believe me, I don't wish to "catch" or mislead anyone.
I am telling you what is urged by life itself. That is why,
in the interests of the men and women who are now living
without a political compass, I advise obtaining this com-
pass in order to steer a straight course and go forward,
together with their people, to a better future for mankind
— to communism. (Stormy applause.)

Our Government has recently received many offers from
large firms in Western countries to deliver equipment for
the Soviet Union's chemical industry. Such proposals, for
instance, have been received from industrialists in West
Germany, Britain, France and the United States. We are
now studying all these offers with a view to concluding
satisfactory contracts. Here we are really acting on the
basis of mutual benefit. The capitalists enter into business

532

contacts only when it is to their advantage. We, for our
part, want to do business with capitalist firms, which is
advantageous to our country. So it is necessary to find a
basis which is beneficial to both parties and then
sign business contracts. The capitalist businessman must
be ensured a legitimate percentage of profit. Here we can-
not count on friendly, unselfish assistance. There is no cap-
italist who would not strive to obtain bigger returns,
to profit from any business transaction.

We have proposed to the Government of the United
States that an agreement be concluded for the delivery of
chemical equipment to our country and that appropriate
credits be granted in this connection. But so far we have
received no reply from the United States. It is apparently
very difficult for the United States Government to reply
to our proposals. But we are in no hurry about this— we
shall wait. Furthermore, if we do wait, that does not
mean we are doing nothing. We are waiting for an an-
swer, but at the same time we ourselves are working on
the problem of speeding up the development of our chemi-
cal industry with our own resources.

The Central Committee of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union and the Soviet Government, in deciding to
speed up the development of the chemical industry, and
especially the production of synthetic materials and their
products to meet the requirements of the population and
those of the national economy, took as their main point of
departure the internal potentialities of our country, bear-
ing in mind the achievements of our own industry, the dis-
coveries of Soviet scientists and specialists in the field
of chemistry, and the successes of research institutes and
designing organizations. We relied on the creative forces
of the Soviet people, on the tremendous experience accu-
mulated by the working class, by the engineering and
technical personnel, and on the inexhaustible natural
wealth of our country. Of course, we are also relying on
your assistance, on the assistance of German chemists,

533

engineers, technicians and economists, on the assistance
of the workers of the German Democratic Republic, and
we are relying on the help of expert chemists in other so
cialist countries.

At the same time we are sure that we shall also be deal-
ing with businessmen from capitalist countries, with all
who want to earn by taking part in the development of
our chemical industry. If they don't want to make money,
that is their own affair. The Soviet Union offers them or-
ders, and it is up to them to accept or reject those orders.
We do not intend to quarrel with anyone about this.

Comrades, today we have been to your works. Earlier,
in 1946, I had occasion to visit one of your plants produc-
ing artificial fibre. Today — as then — we saw many inter-
esting things at your works. Thank you for showing us
your plant. I have not often had the opportunity of visit-
ing chemical enterprises. I am better acquainted with
the mining industry. My father was a miner and I, too,
worked in the mines for quite a time, and have still not
forgotten the conditions in which miners work and min-
ing equipment. Though mines are now provided with new
equipment and have new working conditions, I try, from
force of old occupational habit, to keep in touch with the
mining industry. I have a fairly good idea about metal-
lurgy and the building industry; and now fate has linked
me with maize. (Animation in the hall. Applause.) Maize
offers great opportunities for the development of agricul-
ture, in your republic as well. Maize means sausage, and
a German, you know, can't live without sausage and beer.
(Laughter in the hall.)

You have shown us your chemical production. Now it
is a question of concluding agreements on co-operation in
developing the chemical industries in our countries-
agreements that will benefit our peoples.

Allow me now to say a few words about the important
and acute problem of the reunification of Germany. Herr
Adenauer and his colleagues are pursuing a "policy of

534

strength" and want to intimidate the Soviet Union, to
make us exert pressure on the Government of the German
Democratic Republic so that it will agree to the reunifica-
tion of Germany at the price of abolishing the G.D.R., that
is to say, by abolishing the social gains of the working
people of the German Democratic Republic. They want you
to agree to the factories and mills being returned to the
German capitalists, to capitalism being restored in your
republic.

And that is what Herr Adenauer calls the reunification
of Germany! He thinks that the Soviet Union will help
him in this. (Laughter.) If any leader in the Soviet Union
were so much as to think that way, people in our country
and in our Party would say that such a leader be placed
in a lunatic asylum and have his head examined. (Stormy
applause.) I do not know how to describe such ideas, but
it certainly reflects a failure to understand the real state
of affairs.

We have said, and we continue to say, that the reunifi-
cation of Germany is an internal matter for the Germans
themselves, for the German workers, for the whole people
of the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Re-
public of Germany. No one but they can decide this ques-
tion or has any right to do so. (Stormy applause.)

As a means of exerting pressure West German militar-
ists wish to use such levers as the arming of the Bundes-
wehr with nuclear weapons and the establishment of
rocket launching sites on the territory of the Federal Re-
public of Germany. But this is sheer madness. It should
not be forgotten that rocket sites and atomic bases have
a reverse power of attraction for rockets from other sites
and bases. Only those who are insane can play with the
lives of millions of men and women. It is high time that
this was understood by Herr Adenauer, and above all by
the War Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany,
Herr Strauss, as well as by those who stand behind them.

As for the Soviet Union, we shall not be intimidated

535

by threats and blackmail. The attempts to intimidate us
are foolish and futile, and it is high time they were aban-
doned.

There is only one way to reunify Germany, and that is
to have representatives of the governments of the two Ger-
man states meet, sit down at a round table and come to
an understanding — all the more so since the talks will be
conducted in a single language— the German language—
and no interpreter will be needed.

If West German militarists continue to employ black-
mail and intimidation with the threat of war, we shall
have to tell them that blackmail against the German Dem-
ocratic Republic is blackmail against the Soviet Union,
and against all the socialist countries. And therefore all
the forces of the socialist countries will be used to defend
the German Democratic Republic. (Stormy, prolonged ap-
plause.)

The German people are a very talented and industrious
people. They have given mankind many remarkable discov-
eries and inventions. The German people do not need ag-
gressive campaigns for Lebensraum. It will be remembered
that Hitler, Gobbels and others urged the Germans to con-
quer foreign territories. They dreamed of Ukrainian saus-
age. But how did it all end? Now neither Hitler nor Gob-
bels has any desire for Ukrainian or German sausage, or
the conquest of foreign territories.

What prospects have the German people then with their
relatively small territory? They have the broadest and
brightest prospects. Today, when one-third of mankind is
building its life under the banner of Marxism-Leninism,
the question of territories has been eliminated.

We do not regard the wealth of the Soviet Union as
being solely our own wealth — it is the wealth of all the
socialist countries. That, too, is the view of real Commu-
nists, Marxist-Leninists, of other socialist countries, who
look upon their countries' wealth as our common wealth,
serving the common interests of the peoples of all social-

ist states. And this wealth is so great that it amply pro-
vides for the requirements of the peoples of all our coun-
tries. (Stormy applause.)

Under socialism the products of labour are distributed
in accordance with the quantity and quality of work con-
tributed by each member of society, i.e., according to the
principle: From each according to his ability, to each ac-
cording to his work. Under communism distribution will
take place according to the principle: From each accord-
ing to his ability, to each according to his needs. In order
to speed the advance of all the socialist countries to com-
munism, we must do everything possible for each social-
ist country to develop its economy and increase its labour
productivity more rapidly. Each of our countries must ren-
der genuinely fraternal aid to the other socialist countries.
By uniting our efforts, by promoting co-operation and col-
laboration, our countries are achieving greater successes
in economic development. At the same time each socialist
country must make the best possible use of its internal
potentialities for developing its national economy.

In the process of building communism, all socialist
countries will equalize their economies, eliminate differ-
ences in level of development, without taking the relative-
ly underdeveloped countries as their criterion. This equal-
ization will not take place by lowering the level of the
countries that are economically highly developed. Bv no
means. The equalization should and will proceed through
the more rapid advance of the countries that are relatively
less developed economically by bringing them un to the
level of the most developed countries. Thus, all the social-
ist countries will march in a common united front along
the road of socialism, along the road of building commu-
nisi society.

\ Comrades, capitalism and socialism are antagonistic so-
cial systems. The imperialists want to ensure their own in-
terests, not only at the expense of the working people of
their own countries, but also at the expense of the peoples

537

of other countries, ignoring their vital interests.\ States-
men of capitalist countries frequently speak openly about
this. For example, in 1956, during our visit to Britain, Sir
Anthony Eden and Mr. Selwyn Lloyd told us that if some-
thing were to happen in the Middle East and the supply of
oil from that area would be cut off, they would not stop
short of war. We told them at that time: It is easy to start
a war but it is difficult to end it. Even a fool can start a
war, and it would more likely be a stupid man who would
start a war, but it is difficult even for a wise man to end it.
Please do not forget this.

At that time we frankly warned Sir Anthony and Mr.
Lloyd: If you start a war in that area, we shall not be
able to remain as onlookers. We have no special interests
in the Middle East. But the Middle East is not so far away
from the Soviet Union and a war there would threaten the
security of our country. However, the British Government
of that day did not heed our advice.

You know how the Soviet Government reacted when the
imperialists unleashed aggression in the Middle East. It
is also well known that this ended in ignominy for the ag-
gressors.

No one can violate foreign frontiers with impunity.
State frontiers have scarcely ever been changed without
war. We stand for non-interference by states in the domes-
tic affairs of other states, for the peaceful co-existence of
states, irrespective of their existing systems. We say: It
is necessary, as the diplomats put it, to recognize the
status quo, to establish good relations between states, to
recognize the necessity for peaceful co-existence of states,
with everything that entails, to end the cold war, to create
conditions for all-round contacts and trade among all
countries. Only on this basis will each country be able to
develop its economy and culture and raise the standard
of living of the people.

There is an abundance of wealth for everyone in the
world — it must simply be rationally and economically

538

used. Marxism-Leninism teaches us that only under social-
ism can this wealth be most rationally used for the good
of all people. That is why we advise people who are liv-
ing without a compass or with a faulty one: Throw
your bad compass into the sea, equip yourself with
our communist compass and take the road of building
a new social system — the socialist system. You may
be confident that the Marxist-Leninist compass will
unerringly lead mankind to a radiant future. (Stormy
applause.)

Comrades and friends, we are doing everything possible
to strengthen the friendship among socialist countries,
friendship among all nations, and to ensure world peace.
We do not confine ourselves within the boundaries of the
socialist countries, but strive to establish contacts and
develop ties with all countries, irrespective of social sys-
tem. But first of all we must strengthen the friendship
among peoples of the socialist countries. So long as this
friendship is strong and indestructible, no enemy can
daunt us. The friendship of the peoples of the Soviet
Union, the German Democratic Republic, and the peoples
of all socialist countries is one of the inexhaustible sources
of our titanic strength.

You are building socialism in your country under the
leadership of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, which
is in the forefront of the bloc of democratic parties united
in the National Front of democratic Germany.

We have very good relations with your Government,
with the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party of
Germany and its leadership. We knew Comrade Thalmann
well, and we know Comrade Pieck — men utterly devoted
to the cause of the working class, to the cause of the work-
ing people. We know Comrade Ulbricht well — a man on
whom the enemies of socialism are concentrating their
fire, inventing all kinds of fables. Why are they doing this?
Because the enemies always choose important targets on
which to concentrate their fire in order to put them out of

539

action and weaken our positions. But the more the ene-
mies of socialism fume and rage, the more they scream
against Comrade Ulbricht, the more he is supported by
the Party and the people. (Stormy applause.)

August Bebel put it very well in his day: If an enemy
praises you, ask yourself what stupidity you have commit-
ted and for what he is praising you. And that is correct.
Consequently, if an enemy censures you, that means you
are on the right path and are faithfully serving the work-
ing class and your people.

At meetings with Comrade Tito I said to him time and
again: What are the American imperialists praising you
for? Why are they giving you wheat? What is this Yugo-
slav socialism which Mr. Dulles likes? Think about it. If
you are really in favour of socialism, it is something the
American imperialists cannot like. They apparently detect
in your country an odour that is not quite socialist, and
that is precisely what they like. Such is the law of the
class struggle.

The leaders of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany are
resolutely and unswervingly following the path charted
by the great teachers of the working class — Marx, Engels
and Lenin, and that is why we have such fraternal rela-
tions with them.

We know your other leaders — such as Comrades Rau,
Matern, and the other members of the Political Bureau of
the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, who spare no efforts
to serve the interests of their people and their Party — and
we hold them in high esteem.

I would like to draw attention to the outstanding role
of our dear friend Comrade Grotewohl. He took the Marx-
ist-Leninist path a little later than his comrades in the Po-
litical Bureau, but having great practical experience, he is
devotedly serving his Party and his people, sparing no
effort, waging an irreconcilable struggle against the
enemies of Marxism-Leninism and resolutely upholding
the great cause of building socialism. (Applause.)

540

Such is the situation, comrades. It must be said that the
general situation in your country is now good.

As regards the German question, the wind is blowing,
not in your faces, but against Herr Adenauer. The time
will come when people will come to you, knock at your
door, and say: "We are from Bonn and we have come to
you for talks." (Applause.) I do not know when they will
come, but I am certain that they will come to you. You can
well afford to wait. Every day works in your favour and
at the same time every day works against Adenauer. So
let us wait.

Comrades, I want to say a few words about the state
of affairs in the Soviet Union. In many parts of our coun-
try harvesting has already begun and it appears that it
will be a very good one. It is rather rare that over a ter-
ritory as vast as that of the Soviet Union, a good harvest
is expected in almost all regions. A good crop is antici-
pated in the Northern Caucasus; good crops are ripening
in the Ukraine, in the Volga area, and in Kazakhstan.
Good yields are also expected in Siberia, although it is a
little early as yet to speak about Siberia. In short, this
year we shall apparently procure no less grain — and even
more— than in 1956, when we procured 3,300 million poods,
so that we shall be able to eat both bread and sausage,
and have enough to spare for beer. (Laughter.) Our so-
cialist camp has everything it needs. We are not depend-
ent on the capitalist world. They organized a blockade
and sought to reduce our opportunities for developing
technology and science. But our sputnik rose earlier than
the small American satellite. And, incidentally, even that
little American satellite was made with the participation
of such German specialists as Dr. von Braun. (Stormy
applause.)

Our industry is working well. The reorganization of the
management of industry has been a huge success. Many
people have been drawn into the management of industry
and the rights of the local bodies have been extended,

541

while centralized planning has been preserved. And this
is a good combination: enlisting the masses in manage-
ment, and preserving centralized leadership so as to avoid
anarchy. Now our plans are being overfulfilled and we are
going forward with confidence. While there is a recession
in American industry, and signs of a recession can be
observed in other capitalist countries as well, the econ-
omy in the socialist countries is doing well and develop-
ing like a healthy organism with a good appetite. We are
confidently marching forward.

We have now charted a far-reaching plan for the devel-
opment of the chemical industry. And we are sure that
this plan will not only be fulfilled, but overfulfilled.

Comrades, the working class and all the working people
of our country are rallied more closely than ever around
the Communist Party and are unanimously supporting its
policy.

Friendship and co-operation among the peoples of all
the socialist countries have grown stronger. The cement-
ing force of this friendship is the unity of views of the
Communist and Workers' parties, based on the great prin-
ciples of Marxism-Leninism.

When the leaders of the League of Communists of Yu-
goslavia took to revising Marxism-Leninism and tried to
shake the unity of the international communist movement,
they met with a vigorous rebuff from all the Marxist-Len-
inist parties. This once again convincingly demonstrates
the unshakable firmness and unity of the forces of world
communism. There is no force on earth that could bar the
road to the working class, and all mankind, or hold back
the inexorable forward march of the peoples to commu-
nism! (Stormy applause.)

Long live the working men and women, engineers and
scientists of your chemical works! (Prolonged applause.)

Long live the working men and women, peasants, office
employees and scientists of the German Democratic Re-
public! (Prolonged applause.)

542

Long live the everlasting and indestructible friendship
between the peoples of the Soviet Union and the German
people! (Prolonged applause.)

Long live the fraternal friendship between the peoples
of the socialist countries! (Prolonged applause.)

Long live world peace! (Stormy, prolonged applause.
All rise.)

SPEECH

AT 5th CONGRESS

OF SOCIALIST UNITY PARTY OF GERMANY

July 11, 1958

Dear Comrades and Friends,

Allow me on behalf of the Central Committee of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union, on behalf of our
Party and all the Soviet people, to convey to the 5th Con-
gress of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, to the mem-
bers of your Party, to the working class and all the work-
ing people of the German Democratic Republic warm fra-
ternal greetings and good wishes for success in the work
of your congress. (Stormy, prolonged applause.)

Your Party has come to its 5th Congress with great suc-
cesses. Looking back, we can see how the positions of so-
cialism have been strengthened in the German Democratic
Republic during the brief period it has been in existence.

The German Democratic Republic has translated into
reality the dreams of the founders of scientific commu-
nism— Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, and of courage-
ous fighters for the freedom and happiness of the German
people, outstanding leaders of the German and interna-
tional working-class movement — August Bebel and Franz
Mehring, Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, Ernst
Thalmann, Klara Zetkin and many others.

The fact that Germany has taken the road to socialism
is of epoch-making significance. It is now clear to every
sensible person that the imperialists' hopes of undermin-

544

ing the building of socialism in the German Democratic
Republic have been completely dashed. The working peo-
ple of your republic, under the leadership of the Socialist
Unity Party, have come through the test with honour and
have overcome many difficulties on their road.

As is shown in the report of your Party's Central Com-
mittee and in Comrade Walter Ulbricht's report, your re-
public, in a relatively brief space of time, has grown strong-
er, has stood firmly on its own feet and has laid a solid
foundation on which the magnificent edifice of socialist so-
ciety can be confidently and rapidly built. The socialist sec-
tor in industry is contributing 88.7 per cent of the total
output and in agriculture already one-third of the land is
being cultivated by enterprises of a socialist type.

With all our hearts, dear comrades, we congratulate you
on these remarkable victories. {Prolonged applause.)

Up to now the building of socialism has been completed
in only one country — in the Soviet Union. Now we are en-
tering an era in which it is to be completed in many coun-
tries.

The 7th Congress of the Bulgarian Communist Party,
which was held recently, summed up the results of the
great work done by the Party and noted that socialist
transformations in Bulgaria had been completed in the
main. The 11th Congress of the Communist Party of
Czechoslovakia also pointed out that socialism had won a
decisive victory in that country and that the task of com-
pleting the building of socialism within the next few years
was on the order of the day. The Second Session of the
8th Congress of the Communist Party of China, held in
May, drew attention to the tremendous successes achieved
by the Chinese People's Republic in building socialism.
The Communist Party of China has worked out its general
policy for building socialism. The implementation of this
policy will enable the Chinese people to turn their coun-
try into a great industrial socialist Power.

The Chinese, Bulgarian, Czechoslovak and other free

545

peoples will complete the building of socialism before long.
The day is not far off when by their untiring and glorious
efforts the workers, peasants and intellectuals — all the
working people of the German Democratic Republic will
also build the radiant edifice of socialism. All friends of
the talented and industrious German people, all progres-
sive mankind will sincerely and warmly rejoice in your
victory. (Stormy applause.)

Socialism is winning ever new historic victories. Let the
ideologists of the bourgeoisie hunt for "evils" and short-
comings in the socialist system and shout about a "crisis
of communism." They have been doing this ever since the
first days of Soviet power in Russia. Yet in spite of all
the intrigues of our enemies, we have built socialism and
are now advancing successfully to a communist society.
(Applause.) As regards industrial output our country has
already outstripped all the capitalist countries with the ex-
ception of the United States, and is now rapidly overtak-
ing that economically most developed country. (Applause.)

Not long ago there were many vociferous cries in the
West that the new form of the dictatorship of the proletar-
iat, people's democracy, which had arisen after the Second
World War in a number of East European countries, has
been artificially imposed by the Communists on the peoples
of these countries and had no future. Today, too, there are
quite a few people who delude themselves with assertions
of that kind.

But a number of People's Democracies are already
directly tackling the task of completing the building of
socialism. During the years of socialist development these
countries have expanded their productive forces several
times and now have a bigger industrial output than they
ever had under capitalism. The peoples themselves, who
have become the owners of all their countries' wealth, have
proved in practice that they are more zealous owners than
were the capitalists. This means that the system of peo-
ple's democracy has withstood the test of time and has

546

proved its vitality as a system in conformity with the fun-
damental interests of the working people. (Prolonged ap-
plause.)

This is a great victory, comrades, a victory of truly his-
toric significance.

The fact that the rates of socialist economic development
are much faster than those of capitalism is of decisive im-
portance. Less than a year has gone by since we pointed
out that the countries of the world socialist system, em-
bracing 35 per cent of the world's population, were pro-
ducing about one-third of the world's total industrial out-
put. Since that time the economy of the socialist countries
has been steadily advancing, while the economy of the cap-
italist countries has been in a feverish state as a result
of crisis phenomena in the principal capitalist country —
the United States of America.

Whereas in the Soviet Union total industrial output in
the first quarter of this year was 11 per cent higher than
in the corresponding period of 1957, in the United States,
according to official American statistics, total industrial
output in the first quarter of this year was 11 per cent
lower than in the corresponding period last year. Output
dropped particularly sharply in the decisive branches of
U.S. heavy industry. For example, oil output dropped dur-
ing this period by 12 per cent; production of coal dropped
by 21 per cent and that of steel by 40 per cent. The output
of durable consumer goods fell by 20 per cent and that
of motor vehicles dropped by 26 per cent.

In the Soviet Union's peaceful competition with the main
capitalist country, the United States, we have obtained
results which cannot fail to gladden the hearts of all
friends of socialism. (Applause.) The Soviet Union is mov-
ing ahead of the United States as regards both the rates
of growth and the increase in production of iron ore, coal,
oil, pig iron, steel, cement and woollen fabrics. In the case
of a number of agricultural products, the Soviet Union is
approaching the volume of output in the United States, and

547

with respect to some products it has already overtaken and
even surpassed America's present level of production. (Ap-
plause.) The Soviet Union produces more than twice as
much wheat as the United States and about three times as
much sugar-beet. In 1957 the output of milk in the Soviet
Union already amounted to about 95 per cent of U.S. out-
put, and the production of butter was somewhat higher
than in the U.S.A.

Our victories in peaceful competition with capitalism
are indisputable, but this does not give us any grounds
for self-satisfaction, conceit or complacency. Not for one
moment must we forget that in a number of branches of
industry and agriculture we are still lagging behind cap-
italist countries and are not as yet meeting in
full the constantly growing requirements of the population
of our countries.

The ordinary person, of course, judges the merits of this
or that system first of all by who is in power, who owns
the factories and mills, the land, all the country's wealth,
what political rights the people have in this or that coun-
try, and so on. But it is also important to him how he,
the worker, eats and clothes himself, what access he has
to science and culture and what his position is with re-
gard to public education.

We should not be Marxist-Leninists if we were to ignore
this. Today we can say with confidence that a worker or
peasant in any of the socialist countries fares much better
than he did in the past under the system of exploitation.
And this is so, in spite of the fact that the socialist coun-
tries, while surmounting tremendous difficulties, had to
begin building the new life by overcoming the consequences
of the war and by laying the foundation for an inde-
pendent socialist economy. In these conditions the working
people consciously had to accept certain restrictions in the
fulfilment of their essential needs.

You are well aware how the Soviet people acted in build-
ing their socialist economy. We denied ourselves a great

548

deal and restricted ourselves with regard to food, clothing
and production of consumer goods, and each ruble saved
was invested in the construction of factories and mills for
heavy industry, in erecting power stations. We made great
haste in this matter, because we knew that if, within a
brief historical period, we did not create our own power-
ful industry, our own large-scale mechanized agriculture,
our own skilled personnel, or if we lagged behind in the
development of science and technology, the imperialists
would crush us and would destroy the country in which,
for the first time, workers and peasants, the working peo-
ple, had come to power. And we emerged victorious.
{Stormy applause.)

When the imperialists unloosed on our country the fas-
cist beast which they had reared, the Soviet people, fully
armed, met this deadly enemy. Everyone knows how the
Hitler adventure ended. Our country, having routed the
enemy, emerged from the war still stronger and more
steeled. After healing the grievous wounds of war, the So-
viet Union rapidly began to develop its economy, science
and culture, and made enormous progress of which we are
justly proud, for such successes are only possible on the
basis of socialism. {Applause.)

Today the situation is such that the Soviet Union, rely-
ing on the extensive production base of socialism, is in a
position to step up sharply the production of consumer
goods within the next few years, to increase the output of
foodstuffs and radically to improve the housing conditions
of the working people, without reducing the rate of devel-
opment of the basic branches of the national economy. For
socialism and communism mean a better, more cultured
and more prosperous life for the working people than
they had under capitalism.

Our Party is making strenuous efforts to uncover and
more fully utilize internal reserves, to give still greater
impetus to the initiative of the working masses and to en-
sure the maximum satisfaction of the needs of the working

549

people within the next few years. The Communist Party
of the Soviet Union has recently carried out the big task
of reorganizing the management of industry and construc-
tion. These measures are already yielding tremendous eco-
nomic results. In recent years the Soviet Union has also
carried out a number of important measures for the fur-
ther development of agriculture.

We have adopted an extensive programme for the devel-
opment of the chemical industry. The fulfilment of this
programme will ensure further technical progress in the
country's national economy and will enable us to solve
quickly the problem of increasing the output of consumer
goods.

The successes achieved by the socialist countries in de-
veloping industry, agriculture, science and culture graph-
ically demonstrate the strength and vitality of the new
social system, of the new forms of relations between the
peoples. (Applause.)

Comrades, the Meeting of 'Representatives of the Com-
munist and Workers' Parties of the Socialist Countries,
which was held in Moscow last November, and the recent
Moscow meeting on economic questions were of great sig-
nificance for strengthening the socialist camp. The docu-
ments approved by these meetings sum up the vast exper-
ience accumulated in the building of socialism in the
U.S.S.R. and the People's Democracies. The Declaration
contained a further development of the fundamental prin-
ciples of Marxism-Leninism as applied to the conditions
of our era.

These meetings demonstrated the indestructible unity of
the peoples of the socialist countries, their all-round inter-
est in the further consolidation of their friendship, in the
improvement and development of co-operation between the
socialist countries.

Much is being done to strengthen this co-operation on
the part of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany and the
President of your republic, an outstanding veteran leader

550

of the German and international working-class movement,
the companion-in-arms of Karl Liebknecht and Ernst Thal-
mann, our dear friend and comrade Wilhelm Pieck
(Stormy, prolonged applause.)

The ranks of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany are
being untiringly welded together by its glorious Central
Committee and by the First Secretary of the Central Com-
mittee of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, our dear
friend and comrade Walter Ulbricht. (Stormy applause.)

Under the leadership of the Socialist Unity Party the
Government of the German Democratic Republic, headed
by our dear friend and comrade Otto Grotewohl, is per-
sistently and steadfastly working for the building of so-
cialism in the German Democratic Republic, for the con-
solidation of peace and the establishment of a united demo-
cratic and peace-loving German state. (Stormy applause.)

In the struggle for the building of a new social system,
the Socialist Unity Party has rallied together all the dem-
ocratic and political forces in the National Front of dem-
ocratic Germany. The co-operation of the parties of the
democratic bloc in the National Front, in which the Social-
ist Unity Party has the leading role, is a reliable guaran-
tee of success in building the new society, in striving for a
better future for the German people. With all our hearts
we wish the parties co-operating in the National Front of
democratic Germany further successes in building the new
life, in strengthening peace, in striving to accomplish the
vitally important task— the establishment of a united, dem-
ocratic and peace-loving German state. (Prolonged ap-
plause.)

Comrades, the unity and solidarity of the socialist camp
presupposes the broad independence and national sov-
ereignty of the countries belonging to it. The development
of co-operation among the socialist states, ever since the
world socialist system came into existence, has clearly
shown that it is precisely the socialist system which en-
sures genuine national independence for the peoples. The

551

socialist camp is a voluntary alliance of equal and sover-
eign states, in which no one strives to gain special rights
for himself and no one seeks for privileges or advantages.

Experience has shown that the socialist countries can-
not act disconnectedly in face of the imperialist camp. If
any country marches singly and apart, it will not be able
to fully utilize the rich possibilities afforded by the so-
cialist system for the victory of socialism. Acting singly, it
will not be able in the present international conditions to
maintain a reliable defence of the socialist gains or to
guarantee them against encroachments by the imperialists.

That is why the Communist and Workers' parties unani-
mously maintain that only the unity of the socialist coun-
tries, based on the principles of proletarian international-
ism, ensures the maximum use of the advantages of the
world socialist system and increases its strength in the
struggle to prevent a new war and in the economic com-
petition with capitalism. Experience has conclusively shown
that the consolidation of the unity of the socialist countries
is a reliable guarantee of their defensive capacity, nation-
al independence and sovereignty. (Applause.)

Comrades, recently reactionary circles of the Western
Powers have again been intensifying their campaign
against the socialist countries, using as a pretext the sen-
tence passed by the Supreme Court of the Hungarian Peo-
ple's Republic in the case of the traitors to the Hungarian
people — Imre Nagy and his associates.

What can be said about these provocative activities of
the reactionaries aimed at increasing international ten-
sion? The tactics of the imperialist forces have recently
borne an increasingly close resemblance to those they em-
ployed in the autumn of 1956, when imperialist reactiona-
ries raising a hysterical clamour about the events in Hung-
ary which they themselves had engineered, unloosed British,
French and Israeli aggression in Egypt, against that
country's national independence. Now too, the situation in
the Arab East is extremely tense. The leading imperialist

552

Powers are preparing for intervention in the Lebanon,
whose people are fighting for their independence, against
the notorious Dulles-Eisenhower Doctrine.

For their own selfish ends aggressive circles in the West
are ready to use anything and everything in order to ag-
gravate the international situation, to intensify the cold
war and to wreck the summit talks.

The Soviet Union, all the countries of the socialist camp,
have exposed, and will continue to expose, the enemies of
peace — those who, resorting to slander and the hypocrit-
ical slogan of "anti-communism," are trying to intervene
in the affairs of other countries and to sow enmity and ha-
tred among the nations. Loyal to the principles of the Lenin-
ist policy of peace, the Soviet Union, together with all the
other socialist countries, will continue to do everything in
its power to strengthen international security, to ease in-
ternational tension and to ensure peace throughout the
world. (Applause.)

The Soviet Government has recently published its pro-
posals on the questions being put forward for considera-
tion by a conference of Heads of Government. The Soviet
Government is again proposing a discussion on the more
important international problems which are ripe for solu-
tion and which, given the good will of all parties, can al-
ready be settled at the present time.

But how are the Western Powers responding to the peace
moves of the Soviet Union? What practical contribution
have they made to ease international tension?

Unfortunately it must be said that the attitude adopted
by the Western Powers by no means provides evidence of
their readiness to help create a favourable atmosphere for
a summit meeting. The flights of American planes, loaded
with hydrogen bombs, towards the frontiers of the Soviet
Union, the policy of nuclear arms race, the arming of the
West German Bundeswehr with atomic weapons, the stub-
born refusal to follow the U.S.S.R.'s example in ending
tests of atomic and hydrogen bombs, the creation of atomic

553

and rocket bases aimed against the socialist countries — all
this hinders the preparation of a summit conference and
prevents the easing of international tension. The Western
Powers are dragging out such issues as cannot be settled,
because the conditions are not yet ripe, or such as do not
at all come within the competence of a summit meeting.
It is clear what they are aiming at. They want to shout
from the house-tops at some future date that they were
right in predicting that the summit meeting would fail.

Among these questions is the reunification of Germany.
The Western Powers insist that the summit conference
should take up this internal affair of the German people.
It is perfectly clear, however, that this question is an in-
ternal matter for the German people and does not come
within the competence of an international conference. To
put forward this question for the conference agenda is to
wreck the calling of such a conference.

The West German press has lately been boosting the
project, put forward recently in the Bundestag, for setting
up a so-called 'Tour-Power committee," that is to say, a
permanent body consisting of representatives of France,
Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union, which ac-
cording to the authors o.c the project, sihould prepare agreed
proposals on the German question. Quite a fuss has
been raised about this project. It is being presented as
practically a "new approach" to German reunification. In
practice, however, there is nothing new about it. The plan
for setting up a "Four-Power committee" is yet another
attempt to make the German people accept the illusion of
a possible Four-Power solution to the German problem or,
in other words, to deceive the German people and divert
them from realistic ways of reunifying the country on a
peaceful and democratic basis.

The Soviet people deeply respect and support the Ger-
man people's efforts to create a united, peace-loving and
democratic German state. The Soviet Government is con-
vinced that the only road offering prospects for ending the

554

splitting of Germany lies through negotiations, agree-
ment and closer relations between the two German states
—the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Re-
public of Germany. Only the Germans themselves, the two
German states, can solve the problem of Germany's na-
tional reunification. (Applause.) Let representatives of
Berlin and Bonn meet and find a reasonable solution to
this problem.

The Government of the German Democratic Republic, in
its proposals, has pointed out a perfectly concrete way of
peacefully restoring Germany's unity, one which is entire-
ly practicable, even under present complex conditions. This
way is through the establishment of a German confedera-
tion. The Western Powers, not wishing to take into account
the national interests of the German people, fear to recog-
nize the right of the German Democratic Republic and the
Federal Republic of Germany independently and without
external interference to come to an agreement on ways to
reunify Germany.

In the Western Powers' proposals the question of the
unity of Germany is tied to the question of European se-
curity. The purpose behind this is to ensure, under the
guise of "reunifying" Germany, the abolition of the people's
democratic system in the German Democratic Republic
and the inclusion of a Germany, thus reunified, in the
North Atlantic alliance. That is what the imperialists want,
and they are even inviting us to have a hand in it. (Laugh-
ter.)

Pursuing their provocative aims, the Bonn ruling circles
present the case as though the Soviet Union might at some
stage agree to this — agree to the abolition of the German
Democratic Republic. The imperialist gentlemen, accus-
tomed to regard peoples and entire states as so much small
change in bargaining among themselves, evidently apply
their own standards to us as well, and because of this, they
even name the price which West Germany could pay the
Soviet Union if the latter were to agree to the reunification

555

of Germany on the Western countries' terms, that is, con-
trary to the will of the working people of the German Dem-
ocratic Republic and without taking into account the vi-
tal interests of the German people.

But how can Communists assist in abolishing the social-
ist system? Could we be parties to turning the entire Ger-
man people into cannon fodder for American generals?
(Prolonged applause.)

After all, how can there be any question of Euro-
pean security, if it is planned to turn the whole of
Germany into a bridgehead for an attack on the socialist
countries? It should also be remembered that the popula-
tion of Europe is over 500 million, whereas about 70 mil-
lion are living in the two German states. This alone shows
that European security is a much broader and more all-em-
bracing question than the German problem.

No one can deny that the adherence of West Germany to
NATO, the introduction of universal conscription in West
Germany and now, too, the decision to equip the Bundes-
wehr with nuclear and rocket weapons are exacerbating
international relations still more, and particularly the re-
lations between the two German states. In this way the
Bonn Government is itself building up, brick by brick, a
wall separating the two parts of Germany.

We can only be astonished at the ease with which the
ruling circles of the Federal Republic of Germany are ven-
turing to lake such a step as equipping the country with
nuclear weapons. To listen to them one might think that
it was not a question of the fate of Germany but merely
of standardizing armaments for the armies belonging to
the North Atlantic bloc.

The Soviet Union has opposed, and continues to oppose,
aggressive blocs whose existence is a source of constant
tension in the relations between states. It is also well
known that the member-countries of the Warsaw Treaty
Organization have been proposing for a long time that
agreement be reached on the abolition of the existing milt-

556

tary groupings. Neither the Soviet Union nor the other
signatory countries of the Warsaw Treaty have any inten-
tion of using their military strength to the detriment of
the security of any other state. We have put forward a pro-
posal for the conclusion of a non-aggression pact between
NATO and the Warsaw Treaty Organization.

Remember the Federal Chancellor's statement that he
could not welcome the arming of new Powers with nuclear
weapons. A little more than a year has elapsed since then.
It is said that Herr Adenauer now feels uncomfortable
when he is reminded about that statement of his. In order
to "justify" himself somehow, he now attributes his change
in attitude to the Soviet Union's development of intercon-
tinental rockets.

Yet what do these arguments have in common with the
task of safeguarding the security of West Germany, if one
takes into account the fact that the military bases and rock-
et installations on the territory of West Germany can be
rendered harmless by a state defending itself with the
help of short-range weapons and that no intercontinental
ballistic missiles at all are needed for this purpose?

We can only regard it as bitterly ironical that the cult
of atomic weapons in West Germany is being created by a
party which calls itself Christian. {Animation in the hall.)
This is indeed the situation described in the popular say-
ing: "The Devil jumps out of his skin, trying to make you
sin." {Laughter in the hall. Applause.) And this Devil,
although he comes from overseas, is evidently strong, since
his spell cannot be broken even by the Pope of Rome who,
as we know, has denounced nuclear weapons. {Laughter
in the hall. Applause.)

The Soviet people are glad that understanding of the
advantages of good-neighbourly relations between our peo-
ples is also increasing among both the working people and
wide sections of the bourgeoisie in West Germany. In West
Germany, however, the anti-Soviet propaganda in which
the most highly placed government leaders are taking part

557

casts a shadow on the young shoots of improved relations
between the U.S.S.R. and the Federal Republic of Germany
and prevents them from growing. Every time responsible
spokesmen of the Federal Republic of Germany, such as
Defence Minister Strauss, call the Soviet Union their po-
tential adversary and enemy, one must draw the conclu-
sion that forces seeking to throw relations with the
Soviet Union back many years are gaining the upper hand
in the Federal Republic of Germany. It is not difficult to
imagine the situation which would arise if the Soviet Gov-
ernment, on its part, were to take similar steps and bring
up its people, who have not forgotten the horrors of the
Hitler invasion, in a spirit hostile to West Germany.

In the pre-war period all of Germany's domestic and for-
eign policy was permeated with anti-communism. Every-
one knows that this policy led the German people to an un-
precedented national catastrophe.

And if today there are again politicians in West Germa-
ny who take up anti-Soviet slogans, the question naturally
arises: For what are they preparing their state— peaceful
co-operation with the Soviet Union and the other peace-
loving countries, or a repetition of the road along which
Hitler led Germany— a road which proved disastrous to the
destiny of Germany?

Herr Strauss and those who think like him should re-
member the high price Germany paid for Hitler's adventur-
ism.

We are well aware, comrades, that the working people
of Germany do not want war, and we do not equate the
handful of bellicose revenge-seekers with the people, who
want peace and reject "atomic death." (Prolonged
applause.) We thoroughly understand the anxiety of the
working people of Germany over the policy of the militari-
zation and fascization of West Germany, and from the
bottom of our heart we wish them success in the struggle
for a united, peace-loving a-r _1 democratic Germany
(Stormy applause.)

558

The cause of strengthening peace in Europe and
throughout the world is served by the decisions of the re-
cent Berlin Conference of European Communist Parties-
decisions with which our Party fully agrees.

Our people desire to live in peace and friendship with
the entire German people. Enmity between our countries
has always brought untold misfortune and suffering. The
Soviet Union and the German Democratic Republic— this
bulwark of the peace-loving forces of the entire German
people— are linked by ties of close friendship and frater-
nal co-operation. (Stormy applause.)

To assist in the more rapid economic development and
further advancement of the material well-being of the peo-
ple of the friendly German Democratic Republic, the
Soviet Government has decided to forego, as of January 1,
1959, the sums which the German Democratic Republic was
to pay annually to cover part of the costs of maintaining
Soviet troops temporarily stationed on its territory. We are
confident that this measure will help strengthen still more
the friendship between our countries and peoples. (Stormy,
prolonged applause. All rise.)

The Soviet people, like the other peoples of Europe, see
in the German Democratic Republic a state which has de-
cisively broken with the policy of imperialism and militar-
ization and has resolutely taken the road of peace and
friendship among the nations. It is precisely this that ex-
plains the growing influence and prestige of the German
Democratic Republic in international affairs and the confi-
dence in its peace poHcy.

Comrades, present here at the congress of the Socialist
Unity Party of Germany are delegations from 46 fraternal
Communist and Workers' parties. This is a very significant
fact which bears witness to the monolithic cohesion of our
revolutionary forces and to the unshakable proletarian sol-
idarity of the Marxist-Leninist parties. (Stormy applause.)

True to the principles of Marxism-Leninism, the revolu-
tionary workers' parties see in the unity of their efforts and

559

in their united action the mighty source of their strength
and a guarantee of success in achieving their aims. The
enemies of socialism are infuriated by our revolutionary
unity, by our fraternal solidarity. And they spare no effort
in their attempts to undermine or shake the unity of the
Marxist-Leninist parties, to weaken the cohesion of the so-
cialist countries.

That is why we greatly regret that the leadership of the
League of Communists of Yugoslavia views its role in re-
lation to our united family of Communist and Workers'
parties from certain particular positions. I have already
had occasion to speak about certain actions of the Yugoslav
leaders which cannot but arouse in us — the Communists of
the Soviet Union and the Communists of all other frater-
nal parties — a feeling of protest and condemnation.
Allow me to express certain views on this matter.
The Yugoslav leadership is now persistently trying to
instil in the Yugoslav people and the members of the Yugo-
slav League of Communists the idea that the present wors-
ening of relations between the League of Communists of
Yugoslavia and all the Communist and Workers' parties
is a continuation of the events of 1948, that is, a continu-
ation of the previous conflict.

But what happened in 1948? At that time our parties crit-
icized the opportunist and nationalist mistakes of the
leadership of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. It was
not our criticism — which we have never renounced— that
was wrong, but the call to replace the leadership of the
Communist Party of Yugoslavia, contained in the resolution
of the Information Bureau. That is all that pertains to
1948. Mistakes were made by both sides — I emphasize, by
both sides — in the sense that the disputes and bad relations
between the parties were extended to the relations between
the governments. The Yugoslavs place the blame on the
Information Bureau, in whose establishment and work they
took an active part until June 1948, for all the mistakes of
the past.

560

We subjected the mistakes made by our side to honest
and open criticism. Nothing of the kind was done by the
Yugoslav leaders when relations were re-established, al-
though they had no little grounds for self-criticism, for
subjecting their mistakes to criticism. Suffice it to recall,
for instance, the slanderous decisions of the 6th Congress
of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia in 1952, in which
it was asserted that the U.S.S.R. was not a socialist coun-
try but an imperialist Power pursuing an expansionist
policy. For such ranting the Western imperialists lavish-
ly subsidized them at the time with hundreds of millions
of dollars. But the Yugoslav leaders never came out with
self-criticism. Furthermore, they even concealed from the
members of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia the
fact that from the very beginning of the talks in Belgrade
in 1955 we told them that we considered our criticism of
their mistakes in 1948 and the 1948 resolution of the In-
formation Bureau to be basically correct.

The assertions of the Yugoslav leaders that the present
worsening of relations between the League of Communists
of Yugoslavia and all the Communist parties is a contin-
uation of the conflict which began in 1948 will not bear
examination. It is a fact that this conflict was settled in
1955, when the Soviet-Yugoslav Declaration was signed.
Relations with Yugoslavia along governmental lines were
normalized and, it may be said, became good. At the same
time contacts were also established along Party lines and
they, too, were developed to a considerable extent. Thus,
the conflict which began in 1948 could already be regarded
as a past stage.

In 1955, we agreed with the Yugoslav leaders when they
said that they considered it desirable to open a new chap-
ter and not rake up the past, so that relations between our
parties could be improved gradually, step by step. The
leaders of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, as
we know, have now broken this agreement as well.

During the Hungarian events in the autumn of 1956 the

561

Yugoslav leadership again intensified its activities aimed
at undermining the unity of the countries in the socialist
camp. At that time our parties energetically rebuffed those
splitting activities. But following the well-known Soviet-
Yugoslav meeting in Bucharest, the situation was again
restored to normal. Even the decision of the Yugoslavs
not to take part in the Meeting of the Communist and
Workers' Parties of the Socialist Countries in Moscow in
the autumn of 1957 and not to sign the Declaration of
those parties did not cause an open exacerbation of rela-
tions.

Our parties refrained at that time from any open reac-
tion to the acts of the Yugoslav comrades, such as
might upset the relations that had been developed by that
time, although each of the fraternal Communist parties
undoubtedly drew its own conclusions from what had hap-
pened. The attitude adopted by the Yugoslav leaders could
not fail to put us on our guard; their actions were a seri-
ous warning to all of us. Although it had been well-known
before this, too, that on a number of questions the Yugo-
slavs had their own particular views, which contradicted
the spirit of Marxist-Leninist ideology, nevertheless our
parties considered it possible to maintain relations and
contacts with the Yugoslav comrades on those questions
on which we had a certain identity of views.

But this was not enough for the Yugoslav comrades.
They evidently wanted something more. Deliberately set-
ting themselves up in opposition to the other Communist
and Workers' parties and speculating on differences with
them, they tried to boost their stock in the inter-
national arena. It may be assumed that when our parties
did not react openly to the Yugoslav leadership's decision
not to take part in the meeting of the Communist and
Workers' parties and when we merely limited ourselves
to drawing our own appropriate conclusions from this —
precisely at that time the Yugoslav leaders decided to
adopt the course of openly attacking the C.P.S.U., the

562

Communist Party of China, and all the Communist and
Workers' parties. This created a situation in which our
parties had to refuse to send delegations to the 7th Con-
gress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia.

So, if we are to speak of the causes of the present wors-
ening of relations it becomes clear that 1948 has noth-
ing to do with the matter and it is wrong to say that pres-
ent relations are a continuation of the old policy. The
Yugoslav leaders are spreading these absurd inventions
and are trying to lay the blame for everything on the past,
on Stalin, on "Stalinism," because otherwise they would
be unable to explain the causes of the present conflict to
the League of Communists of Yugoslavia and to their peo-
ple; while they lack the courage to accept responsibility
for the conflict.

Our line is clear. It is the line of struggle for the purity
of the ideas of Marxism-Leninism and for the utmost con-
solidation of the ranks of the communist movement. Guid-
ed by these considerations of principle, we came out vig-
orously against the revisionist propositions formulated in
the programme of the League of Communists of Yugosla-
via. The anti-Marxist, anti-Leninist views of the Yugoslav
leaders were subjected to thorough-going principled criti-
cism by the Communist Party of China, the Socialist Unity
Party of Germany and all the other fraternal parties. (Ap-
plause.) In decisions taken by their leading bodies and in
articles in the Party press, all the parties took a clear-cut
position and condemned those views, paying considerable
attention to a critical analysis of them. And this was cor-
rect.

How did the Yugoslav leaders take this comradely crit-
icism? They completely rejected our criticism, avoided dis-
cussion on the substance of the ideological questions raised
and adopted the course of making unprincipled, crude
attacks on the Communist and Workers' parties. The lead-
ers and the "theoreticians" of the League of Communists
of Yugoslavia evidently cannot make their own views

563

tally, are weak in their own "theories," and therefore are
unable to defend them against criticism.

The Yugoslav leaders were offended by the criticism
and presented it to the Yugoslav Communists in a very dis-
torted way. It turned out to be not a criticism of the ideo-
logical mistakes of the authors of the programme of the
Yugoslav League of Communists, but rather an applica-
tion of the "policy of strength," "unscrupulous attacks on
Yugoslavia, on the policy she is pursuing and on the
building of socialism in Yugoslavia," as Borba wrote and
as Yugoslav propaganda is daily insisting. This propa-
ganda is aimed at smearing and disparaging in every
way the Soviet Union, the Chinese People's Republic and
the other socialist countries and their parties, and at seek-
ing to arouse in the Yugoslav people a feeling of estrange-
ment, offence, and even hatred for our countries and
parties. It is significant that the word "comrades" has
begun to be used more and more rarely when they write
and speak about our parties, which have proved in prac-
tice their loyalty to the ideals of socialism and which are
successfully building socialism in their countries.

In Borba, Komunist, Politika and other organs of the
Yugoslav press there have appeared again, as in the past,
unseemly articles and objectionable cartoons. In the Yugo-
slav press and on the radio, those who in the past built
up their careers on anti-Soviet and anti-communist con-
coctions are again speaking and writing. In giving them
an entirely free hand, the leadership of the League of Com-
munists of Yugoslavia obviously approves of their views
which are quite compatible with the most rabid propa-
gandists of imperialism.

At the beginning one might have believed that the slan-
derous concoctions in the Yugoslav press did not meet
with the approval of the leaders of the League of Com-
munists of Yugoslavia, that they would take advantage of
the first opportunity and, in a business-like way, would
objectively consider our criticism and show alarm at the

564

dangerous way in which relations between our parties
were developing. But after Comrade Tito's speech in La-
bin, it became perfectly clear who was really organizing
and inspiring this campaign against the Communist par-
ties and the socialist countries.

A feeling of indignation and protest is aroused by the
unworthy and insulting attacks made by Comrade Tito
and Yugoslav propaganda on the Chinese People's Re-
public, on the glorious Communist Party of China and on
its leaders, who administered a vigorous rebuff to
the splitting activities of the Yugoslav revisionists.

Now the Yugoslav leaders seek to disparage our system
and our methods of building socialism. They allege that
we are distorting Marxist-Leninist teachings and that they
themselves are the real custodians of Marxism-Leninism.
We have read and heard this before, on more than one oc-
casion. Yet how is it that the Soviet Union has achieved,
and continues to achieve with every new year, results
which are recognized by the whole world? How is the one
to be reconciled with the other?

Yugoslav propaganda reiterates that Marxism-Leninism
is being distorted in the Soviet Union and is being incor-
rectly applied, that the Soviet Union is a bureaucratic
state, and so on, whereas in actual fact our rate and level
of development, especially in science, culture and a num-
ber of branches of the economy, have surpassed the most
highly developed capitalist countries. Today, when the
Soviet Union has been the first in the world successfully
to launch three big artificial earth satellites, it has become
clear to everyone what a high level of development the So-
viet Union has achieved. {Prolonged applause.) The ac-
tual facts show convincingly that the statements of the
Yugoslav revisionists on the Soviet Union will not hold
water, as the saying goes.

Now, what successes have been achieved by Yugo-
slavia, whose leaders consider themselves to be the cham-
pions of true Marxist-Leninist teachings? After all,

565

Comrade Tito boasted at the meeting in Labin that he can
build socialism even with the help of free American wheat.
(Laughter in the hall.)

Let us compare the conditions in Yugoslavia with those
of her neighbour, Bulgaria. We know in the past their
level of development was approximately the same. Since
Bulgaria, throughout the post-war years, has been stead-
ily carrying out a socialist transformation and has devel-
oped her national economy, relying on the mutual sup-
port of the other socialist countries, she has achieved con-
siderably better results than Yugoslavia in the major in-
dices of economic development. For example, industrial
output in Yugoslavia rose in 1957 to 3.1 times that of 1939,
and in Bulgaria to 7.7 times its 1939 level. In the period
from 1948 to 1957 industrial output in Yugoslavia rose
2.1 times and in Bulgaria — 3.8 times.

Or let us take such a very important question of social-
ist transformation of society as co-operation among the
peasantry. It is well known that without co-operation in
the village, it is, as Lenin said, impossible to wrest the
peasant from barbarism; it is impossible to make him cul-
tured; it is impossible to switch his farmstead on to social-
ist lines and to organize his labour on the basis of the
most modern mechanized production. "If we remain, as of
old, on small farmsteads, even though as free citizens in
a free land," Lenin pointed out, "we shall all the same
face the threat of inevitable ruin. . . ."

Guided by the Lenin's co-operative plan, the People's
Democracies have won remarkable successes in the social-
ist transformation of agriculture. It is a fact that the
Chinese People's Republic has already completed co-oper-
ation in agriculture. In the Korean People's Democratic
Republic more than 95 per cent of all peasant households
had been united in co-operatives by the end of 1957. In
the Bulgarian People's Republic the socialist sector ac-
counts for more than 92 per cent of the cultivated area.
In Czechoslovakia the socialist sector embraces over

566

70 per cent of the total area of farmland, in Albania, near-
ly 70 per cent of the entire cultivated area, and so on.

Yet in Yugoslavia only about 2 per cent of the peasant
households are united in producers' co-operatives and no
consistent work is being conducted to transform agricul-
ture on socialist lines. It transpires that on the peasant
question, too, the Yugoslav comrades are clearly at log-
gerheads with Marxism-Leninism.

In Yugoslavia, there is much said about Marxism-
Leninism, but there is much done which is contrary to
Marxist-Leninist teachings.

Recently Yugoslav propaganda has been misleading the
population with the allegation that the low standard of
living of the population is to be explained by the economic
blockade of Yugoslavia. If it is a question of a blockade,
we must say most definitely that it did not exist in the
past and most certainly does not exist now. We Soviet
people know full well what a blockade is. Yugoslavia, far
from being subjected to a blockade, enjoyed special pat-
ronage and received large sums when the United States of
America, in appraising the situation, decided that the Yu-
goslav brand of national communism deserved special
support. It should also be recalled that Yugoslavia received
substantial aid from the Soviet Union in the first four
post-war years and afterwards from the United States,
Britain, France and West Germany. What kind of blockade
is this?

In recent years, after the conflict with Yugoslavia had
been ended and her economic ties with the socialist coun-
tries had begun to develop, there followed such events
as the appearance of the anti-Marxist draft programme
of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, the slander-
ous attacks on the Communist and Workers' parties made
at the 7th Congress of the Yugoslav League of Commu-
nists, and so on. One cannot but ask whether all that has
not been prompted by a desire to recreate the "blockade*'
situation or by nostalgic feelings for it. Evidently this

567

alleged "blockade" was to the liking of some people
in Yugoslavia.

According to reports the United States is already mak-
ing a new "contribution" to the cause of "building Yugo-
slav socialism." {Laughter in the hall.) But the leaders
of Yugoslavia bashfully say nothing about this new hand-
out, because the peoples know well the price of American
generosity. The capitalists do not give away something
for nothing, and if they do give something, they take one's
soul in return. A high price must subsequently be paid for
their aid.

The Yugoslav leaders claim that they are staying out-
side any blocs; they denounce the policy of blocs, and so
on. This claim of theirs does not accord with reality, for
Yugoslavia, herself, together with Turkey and Greece, be-
longs to the Balkan Pact and, through her allies in that
bloc, is in some measure tied to NATO and the Baghdad
Pact.

As for the socialist camp, which the Yugoslav leaders
persistently equate with a "bloc," it by no means consti-
tutes a grouping of that kind. Incidentally, they are well
aware that a number of socialist countries do not belong
to the military organization of the Warsaw Treaty, set up
by a group of countries for defence against the aggressive
machinations of the imperialists united in NATO. The
prattle about a policy of "no blocs" has evidently been
needed by the Yugoslav leaders for the purpose of mis-
leading the people and obtaining their approval for their
policy of ignoring the socialist camp, a policy of maintain-
ing neutrality with regard to the struggle of the social-
ist forces in the international arena.

But what is the significance of holding aloof and ignor-
ing the community of socialist countries in our day, when
a fierce class struggle is being waged on a world scale?
To real Communists, neutrality in conditions of sharp
class struggle means weakening the forces of the revo-

568

lutionary movement, the forces of socialism; it means
helping the enemies of the working class.

The Yugoslav leaders are shouting themselves hoarse,
declaring that someone is encroaching on their independ-
ence. But what kind of independence is in question?
Loyalty to Marxism-Leninism is obviously a burden to
them, and they want to rid themselves of it. So let them
say so plainly; then everything will fall into place, and
all will become clear. (Applause.)

In the struggle for peace, we are prepared to pool our
efforts with all honest people, whether they are members
of the Labour Party, liberals, reformists or nationalists.
On this ground we establish relations of co-operation with
all peace-loving forces. But when the Yugoslav leaders
declare they are Marxist-Leninists and use Marxism-
Leninism only as a cover to mislead gullible people and
divert them from the path of revolutionary class struggle
charted by Marx and Lenin, they want to wrest from the
hands of the working class its sharpest class weapon.
Whether they wish to or not, they are helping the class
enemy of the working people, and in return for this they
are given loans; in return for this the imperialists praise
their "independent" policy of "no blocs," which the reac-
tionary forces make use of in an attempt to undermine our
socialist camp. But we most vigorously and firmly de-
clare: "Nothing will come of it, Messrs. Imperialists — your
arms are too short." (Stormy, prolonged applause.)

The imperialists are fighting against us with might and
main, and there is nothing surprising in that. The world
of capitalism is striving to uphold the old and is fighting
for it with every means available. But when people call
themselves Marxist-Leninists and actually help the im-
perialists, we consider it our duty resolutely to expose
such people.

In the course of the class struggle the imperialists make
every endeavour to use all kinds of opportunists and revi-
sionists in their own interests in order to undermine the

569

unity of the ranks of the international communist move-
ment. It is a very dangerous phenomenon and a relent-
less struggle should be waged against it; the monolithic
unity of the ranks of the Marxist-Leninist parties must be
strengthened.

The more united our movement is, the greater will be
the successes of every party, of the working class, of all
the socialist states and of the entire international com-
munist and working-class movement. We have such unity
now; it is unbreakable, because it is based on unshakable
loyalty to Marxism-Leninism. {Prolonged applause.)

The Yugoslav leaders allege that the Soviet Union and
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union lay claim to
some special role, to hegemony, and wish to give orders,
while they, the Yugoslavs, are not in agreement with this.
Such statements are completely false. It would be under-
standable if the propagandists of the imperialist camp
were trumpeting it, but when such things are said by peo-
ple who call themselves Communists, the question invol-
untarily arises: How could they sink to such base slander?

And this slander is not directed solely against the So-
viet Union. The authors of these lying assertions are
trying to smear the essence of our revolutionary struggle,
to besmirch communist comradeship, and socialist co-
operation. They distort the concept of united action by
the working class of all countries in the interests of strug-
gle against the yoke of capital, in the interests of the
working people. Unity for the working class does not mean
the sacrifice of its interests or its submission to someone.
The working class of one country unites with the working
class of another in order to do away with capitalism which
engenders the policy of dictation, pressure and national
oppression. (Applause.)

The Yugoslav leaders have chosen as a target for their
attacks the section in the Declaration of the Meeting of
Representatives of the Communist and Workers' Parties
of the Socialist Countries in which the leading role of the

570

Soviet Union and its Communist Party is noted. But the
Yugoslav leaders know perfectly well that there was no
such point in the draft Declaration which they had before
the meeting. The addition about the role of the U.S.S.R.
and the CP.S.U. was proposed and substantiated at the
meeting itself, not by the CP.S.U. delegation, but by
representatives of other fraternal parties. (Applause.)

Where do we, the Communists of the Soviet Union, stand
on this question?

I wish to dwell on this because enemies often use the
fabrication of "Soviet hegemony" for their own vile pur-
poses, and the Yugoslav leaders play up to the enemy by
stirring up passions. They stretch their nets out to en-
snare naive people, playing on feelings of national pride
and seeking to inculcate into people's minds the mon-
strous allegation that all Communist parties fall under the
rule and command of one party. We have already grown
accustomed to these slanderous inventions, because one
cannot expect anything else from enemies. But if these
things are said by people who call themselves Commu-
nists, we cannot fail to rebuff such allegations. (Applause.)

The role of our Leninist Party of Communists and of
the peoples of the Soviet Union in the revolutionary move-
ment is expressed in the fact that the working class,
the working people of Russia, guided by the Party of the
Bolsheviks, were the first to crush their class enemy, the
first to win the revolutionary battle in October 1917 and
to create a state of the working people. (Stormy applause.)
Overcoming famine and economic dislocation, they
routed the imperialist invaders and the forces of counter-
revolution, created a socialist industry and mechanized
agriculture, and built socialism. The peoples of the Soviet
Union bore the brunt of the war against Hitler fascism
and defeated it. That victory was a gain for the whole
world, and for the peoples of many countries, who were
given the opportunity to build socialism. (Prolonged ap-
plause.) These included the peoples of Yugoslavia, who

571

had waged a prolonged struggle to secure the conditions
for building socialism in their country. If all this is our
"special role," then this role has been won by the work-
ing class, the peoples of the Soviet Union and our Com-
munist Party through suffering and sacrifice, through
their great constructive labour, through their heroic strug-
gle for the cause of communism. (Stormy applause.) They
have not imposed this special role upon anyone; it has
been recognized by the working class of the whole world,
for everything that has been accomplished by our people
has not only corresponded with their own national inter-
ests but has also been a worthy contribution to the com-
mon cause of the proletariat of all countries. (Stormy ap-
plause.)

In what does our country's role consist, now that the
Soviet Union has achieved great successes in its develop-
ment, in its economy, science, culture and in the continu-
ous improvement of the well-being of the working people?
It consists in that our country is paving the way to com-
munism. It consists in that the Soviet Union, as the strong-
est and economically most developed state, gives other
states the most unselfish assistance, and considers the
cause of building socialism in each country as its own
cause and the successes of all the peoples building social-
ism as its own success. (Applause.) The imperialist rulers
are now no longer able to isolate socialist countries and
establish an economic and political blockade around them.
And we take pride in the fact that the Soviet people by
their labour have contributed much to the growth of the
forces of the world socialist camp. (Prolonged applause.)

Our state is giving assistance to other countries, be-
cause we Communists, Marxist-Leninists, do not isolate
ourselves within our own frontiers. We regard the cause
of building socialism and communism as a great interna-
tional cause.

It is not by accident that enemies are concentrating the
main fire of their propaganda machine against the Soviet

572

Union. They know that the working people of all coun-
tries, the oppressed peoples, associate the Soviet Union
and our Communist Party with all the great transforma-
tions that the working class is bringing to mankind. The
enemies of communism not only want to destroy the unity
of the forces of the international working class, but also
intend to strike a blow at the very heart of the revolution-
ary movement. That is why they are slandering the Soviet
Union and showering praise on the so-called "national com-
munism," which the imperialists of the United States of-
ten identify with "Yugoslav communism." For at the pres-
ent stage "Yugoslav communism" is not dangerous to
them; what is dangerous to them is the Communist Party
of the Soviet Union and the successes of the Land of
Soviets, the strength of the socialist camp, the unity
and solidarity of the international communist movement.
The imperialists realize that the Soviet Union is the
blazing torch which is seen by the working people
of the whole world and which lights up their road in the
struggle for a radiant future. (Stormy, prolonged ap-
plause.)

The imperialists calculate that if they succeed in min-
imizing the role of the Soviet Union, they will be able in
that way to disorganize the international working-class
and communist movement, and then to undermine in gen-
eral the faith of the working class and the Communist
parties of other countries in the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union as the vanguard of the international com-
munist movement, and in the Soviet Union as a strong-
hold of world peace. Afterwards they would concentrate
their fire on other parties, and apparently in the first
place on the Communist Party of China. As long as the
Soviet Union, the Chinese People's Republic and other
socialist countries remain strong and their unity remains
firm, the imperialists will give every possible material en-
couragement to all subversive actions directed against
the unity of the socialist countries.

573

The conclusion formulated by the fraternal Communist
parties concerning the role of the Soviet Union reflects
the objective progress of the epoch-making struggle for
the victory of socialism, for the triumph of the ideas of
Marxism-Leninism. At the same time it serves as a vivid
testimonial to the solidarity of the Communist parties of
all countries. The enemies of communism and the slan-
derers have been given battle on an important issue, and
they should take care to remember that the international
communist movement will not permit any attempt to dis-
credit the Soviet Union and will respond to any slander-
ous anti-communist campaign with still greater solidar-
ity of the revolutionary forces. {Prolonged applause.)

In the camp of the socialist countries, in the interna-
tional communist movement, there can be no question of
orders being given to anyone or the subordination of one
party or country to another. There is neither the need for
this, nor is there any organization which could issue
such orders.

We are grateful to the fraternal Communist and Work-
ers' parties for their high assessment of the role and ef-
forts of the Soviet Union and our Communist Party. This
high appraisal obligates the Communists and all the So-
viet people to strive still more perseveringly to build com-
munism in order to justify the hopes placed by the frater-
nal parties in our Party and the Soviet Union. We are
helping our friends in the socialist countries not only with
advice and experience, but are also giving them material
assistance in the building of socialism. (Applause.) We
have always said and we continue to say: We shall share
everything fraternally with the Communist parties and
the socialist countries — joy in our successes and victories,
and the hardships of struggle for our common and great
cause. (Prolonged applause.) We realize that it is impos-
sible to advance to communism alone, separated from our
brothers, the peoples of the socialist countries; it is neces-
sary to help one another, in order by joint efforts to bring

574

those who are lagging behind up to the level of the most
advanced. We shall go forward and reach communism on
a broad front. (Applause.) Our course is clear. It is light-
ed up by the teachings of Marxism-Leninism. It is the
straight highway by which the free peoples will come to
communism. The peoples of the non-socialist countries,
following the example of the socialist states, will carry
through social and political transformations in their
lands, will eliminate the system under which the exploi-
tation of man by man predominates, and will join in the
general movement of the peoples towards a bright future.
(Applause.)

At the present time all the Communist and Workers'
parties are rallied in solidarity as never before; there is
no divergence among us in our assessment of Right-wing
opportunism and revisionism within the communist move-
ment as the Trojan horse of the imperialists on which
they are now banking. However, we ought to say,
comrades, that we see things as follows: Although
the Trojan horse is still dangerous today, it was more dan-
gerous for Troy. (Animation in the hall.) In the time of
Homer, the people withstanding the siege shut them-
selves up in a fortress. In. our times such fortresses are
unnecessary. At the present time, therefore, the Trojan
horse can obviously no longer play the role it once did.
(Laughter in the hall. Applause.)

The Russians have a popular saying about a horse not
being worth the fodder it eats. (Laughter in the hall.) A
peasant goes on feeding a horse, but the animal, instead
of filling out, grows thinner. Then the peasant says that
it doesn't pay to feed that horse well, because it cannot
even wag its tail. (Laughter in the hall.) The imperialists
are wasting their money in the same way. No matter what
fodder they give their horse, it will be unable to drag the
chariot of revolution away from the course traced by
Marxism-Leninism. (Stormy, prolonged applause. "Hear!
Hear!" With the monolithic unity of Marxist-Leninist

575

—

forces, this horse is essentially doomed, and consequently
disappointment awaits those who are feeding it, because
the revolutionary movement is advancing and cannot be
held back. {Prolonged applause.)

More and more people are marching under the banner
of Marxism-Leninism, and we can already see our ulti-
mate goal appearing on the horizon — the victory of the
working class throughout the whole world, the victory of
the ideas of communism. (Stormy applause.)

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union will resolute-
ly continue to repulse the attacks of opportunists and
revisionists. We shall do this, not by interfering in the
internal affairs of this or that party, but by means of
comradely criticism, by means of the comradely influence
of the world revolutionary movement and Marxist-Lenin-
ist parties upon erroneous attitudes which may arise in
this or that party. We are not in favour of interference by
any parties in the internal affairs of other parties; and
even less are we in favour of interference by some states
in the internal matters of other states. We are for com-
radely criticism, which is at the same time comradely
support for those who make mistakes, who are still able to
realize those mistakes and understand where they may
lead, who are still capable of rectifying mistakes. As re-
gards the leadership of this or that party, the leadership
of this or that country — all this is wholly within the com-
petence of each party, within the competence of the gov-
ernment and the people of each country.

We cannot leave unanswered statements which are
aimed at revising the ideological foundation of our par-
ties— the theory of Marxism-Leninism — and at undermin-
ing the unity of the Communist parties.

In their speeches and official documents the Yugoslav
leaders have outlined openly revisionist views that are
contrary to the revolutionary essence of Marxism-Lenin-
ism. They have taken a clearly schismatic, revisionist line
and by so doing are helping the enemies of the working

576

class in the fight against Communism, in the imperialists'
fight against the Communist parties and against the unity
of the international revolutionary working-class movement.

Of course, the fact that revisionist views have gained
the upper hand in the leadership of one of the Communist
parties is bad. But, as the popular saying goes, "It's an
ill wind that blows nobody good." At the 7th Congress of
the League of Communists of Yugoslavia its leaders did in
fact expose themselves. Their true face, which they assid-
uously mask behind noisy and demagogic phrases about
loyalty to Marxism-Leninism, has been revealed to the en-
tire international communist movement. If previously some
comrades might have thought that not everything pos-
sible had been done to improve relations between the so-
cialist countries and Yugoslavia and to ensure that Yugo-
slavia would keep in step with all the socialist countries,
then the 7th Congress of the League of Communists of
Yugoslavia has shown that it was not a question of im-
proving relations, but of the fact that the leaders of the
League of Communists of Yugoslavia had adopted a line
that was incorrect in principle and was alien to Marxism-
Leninism.

In essence, the programme of the Yugoslav leadership
is a worse version of a whole series of revisionist plat-
forms held by Right-wing Social-Democrats. Consequently
the Yugoslav leaders have not been drawn to the path of
revolutionary Marxist-Leninist teachings; they have fol-
lowed the path laid down by revisionists and opportunists
of the Second International— Bernstein, Kautsky and other
renegades. In actual fact they have now joined forces
with Karl Kautsky's offspring— his son Benedict, who
acted as one of the authors of the Right-wing opportunist
programme of the Austrian Socialists.

But whereas Kautsky openly declares that Marxism is
obsolete, the Yugoslav revisionists, on the contrary, are
trying to conceal, in phrases, their corrupt position under
the banner of Marxism-Leninism.

577

Communists have been and will continue to be implac-
able in the struggle against distortions of Marxism-
Leninism, the struggle to keep the Marxist-Leninist ban-
ner unsullied, and they will not allow revisionists and
those who have betrayed revolutionary principles to hide
under the banner of Marxism-Leninism. (Applause.)

To us and to the international communist movement,
the ideas of the Yugoslav revisionists are not new; exam-
ples of such sallies have been known more than once ill
history. And all of them have been exposed and rejected by
history. The Yugoslav leaders are harping on propositions
that are old, obsolete and rejected.

In our struggle for our common cause we should not
pay more attention to the Yugoslav revisionists than they
actually deserve. The more attention we pay to them, the
more they will think that they are a force playing an im-
portant role. They want their reputation to be enhanced, so
that others may think that the Yugoslav revisionists are
very important. As was the case in the recent past, so now,
too, they are evidently hoping to curry fresh favour with
the imperialists in this way.

The leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union is of the opinion that we should not meet the wishes
of the Yugoslav leaders who are trying to exaggerate the
present conflict between us. We are not going to assist in
working up passions or in making relations more strained.
Even in the existing state of our relations with the League
of Communists of Yugoslavia it will be good to preserve
some spark of hope and to search for acceptable forms
of contact on certain questions.

The assertion that we are rejecting all that is positive
in the work of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia
and are bringing pressure of some kind to bear on the
Yugoslav state is absolutely untrue and is a slander
against us. The people of our countries and our parties
have a deep respect for the freedom-loving peoples of
Yugoslavia and appreciate the contribution the Yugoslav

578

Communists made to the common struggle against fas-
cism. Both they and we have a common enemy and we
believe that in spite of the conditions which have arisen,
we shall continue in the future to wage a joint struggle
against that enemy and shall jointly defend peace and
the cause of socialism.

In general, comrades, it should be said that no matter
how unpleasant are the results of the revisionist kinks of
the leaders of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia,
this is still not an earthquake that might shake our build-
ing of socialism. (Animation in the hall.) On the contrary,
by our common efforts we have recently strengthened our
building still more. An unshakable foundation for the
building of communism has already been laid. We are
firmly marching along our road and shall continue to do
so, and as for those who are not going along the same
way, that is, with the Communist and Workers' parties
which take their stand on the positions of Marxism-Lenin-
ism and spare no efforts in the struggle for the triumph
of communism — let them find other partners for them-
selves.

Comrades, in the Socialist Unity Party of Germany the
German working class has a militant leader, inspirer and
organizer of socialist construction, a worthy continuer of
the best traditions of the German labour movement. Your
Party has succeeded, in alliance with the anti-fascist dem-
ocratic parties, in bringing about a revolution in the
minds of the broad masses of the working people, in
awakening their creative forces and directing the people's
energy to building up a new socialist society.

Thanks to the activities of your Party, the working peo-
ple of the German Democratic Republic have won the con-
fidence of all peace-loving peoples. Consistently carrying
out the ideas of Marxism-Leninism, the ideas of peace
and friendship among the nations, the Socialist Unity
Party of Germany has won sympathy and respect in the
friendly family of the Communist parties of the whole

579

world. They see in your Party a faithful friend, a
militant detachment of the international communist move-
ment.

Your congress is convincing proof of the militant unity
of the Party, of the fact that it is tightly knit around its
Central Committee, and has close ties with the broad masses
of the working people. A manifestation of the fighting
efficiency of your Party is the fact that it is waging an
implacable struggle for the purity of Marxist-Leninist the-
ory, against revisionism and dogmatism.

Communists are consistent and loyal internationalists.
All the Communist parties resolutely condemn any ac-
tions that run counter to the strengthening of friendship
among nations. Holding high the banner of proletarian in-
ternationalism, the Communist and Workers' parties are
rallying the masses of working people, millions strong,
for the struggle for peace and socialism, for a better fu-
ture for all mankind. (Prolonged applause.)

The cordiality and warmth with which we have been
received at your congress speak louder than any words
of the profound friendship that has been established be-
tween our parties and peoples. The Soviet people cherish
sincere feelings of friendship for the working people of
the German Democratic Republic. The friendship between
the working people of the German Democratic Republic
and the Soviet people rests on the firm and unshakable
foundations of proletarian internationalism; it is inspired
by the noble ideas of the struggle for a brighter future
for mankind. (Applause.)

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union has always
considered, and will continue to consider, that its highest
international duty is to develop and strengthen all-round
co-operation among all the socialist countries, to strength-
en steadily the unity and might of the great socialist
camp. In unity lies the strength and invincibility of the
growing world socialist system, of the entire internation-
al communist movement. And the Communist parties

580

will continue to strengthen this unity in spite of all the
machinations of our class enemies. (Applause.)

Comrades, permit me to read the text of a message of
greetings from the Central Committee of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union to the 5th Congress of the So-
cialist Unity Party of Germany.

MESSAGE TO THE 5th CONGRESS
OF THE SOCIALIST UNITY PARTY OF GERMANY

Dear Comrades,

The Central Committee of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union sends heartfelt fraternal greetings to the
delegates of the 5th Congress of the Socialist Unity Party
of Germany and warmly wishes you success in the work
of your congress. (Stormy applause.)

The Socialist Unity Party of Germany is a militant and
tested leader of the working class and of all the working
people of the German Democratic Republic, staunchly
guarding the interests of the German working people and
consistently applying to life the great ideas of Marxism-
Leninism. In its selfless struggle for the creation and con-
solidation of the German Democratic Republic, for the
peaceful development and prosperity of its homeland, for
the reunification of Germany on a peaceful, democratic
basis, your Party has shown itself to be the spokesman
of the fundamental national interests of the entire German
people and is utterly devoted to them.

The establishment of the German Democratic Republic—
the first peaceable, democratic state of workers and peas-
ants on German territory — has proved to be a turning-
point in the history of the German people, opening up for
them splendid prospects for peaceful development and
the building of a new life. The working people of the
G.D.R. have steadfastly pursued the course of building
socialism, and by surmounting great obstacles caused by

581

the splitting of Germany, have achieved remarkable suc-
cess in consolidating their workers' and peasants' state
and in developing their socialist economy and culture.
The consolidation of the German Democratic Republic
and its progress in laying the foundations of socialism are
of tremendous significance for the fate of the German
people and the development of the world socialist sys-
tem.

The German Democratic Republic represents the bul-
wark of all the progressive forces of the German people
fighting against the ruinous anti-popular policy of the West
German militarists and revanchists, and it is invaluably
contributing to strengthening peace in Europe and
throughout the world.

The Socialist Unity Party of Germany is the worthy-
successor and continuer of the glorious traditions of the
German revolutionary working-class movement forged
under the direct leadership of the great founders of scien-
tific socialism— Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. It strug-
gles implacably to maintain the purity of Marxist-Leninist
teachings. It fights resolutely against present-day revision-
ism, to cement the unity of the countries in the social-
ist camp and knit together the world communist move-
ment in keeping with the principles of proletarian inter-
nationalism.

The Central Committee of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union, in the name of our Party and the Soviet
people, warmly wishes the Socialist Unity Party of Ger-
many and all the working people of the German Democrat-
ic Republic new successes in the further development of
their socialist economy and culture, in improving the well-
being of their working people, in the struggle for peace
and the reunification of Germany on a peaceful and dem-
ocratic basis. (Prolonged applause.)

Long live and prosper the peaceful German Democratic
Republic and its working people, the builders of social-
ism! (Stormy, prolonged applause.)

582

Long live the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, the
well-tried leader of the working people of the German
Democratic Republic! (Stormy, prolonged applause,)

Long live the friendship and co-operation between the
Soviet and German peoples, the indestructible unity of the
countries of the socialist camp and the international com-
munist movement! (Stormy, prolonged applause.)

CENTRAL COMMITTEE

OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

OF THE SOVIET UNION

(Stormy, prolonged ovation. The delegates at the con-
gress rise to greet the delegation of the C.P.S.U. Cries:
"Long live the C.P.S.U.!", "Hurrah!" The delegates and
guests join in singing "Internationale")

SPEECH

AT SOVIET-CZECHOSLOVAK FRIENDSHIP MEETING

OF MOSCOW WORKING PEOPLE

July 12, 1958

Dear Comrade Novotny,

Dear Czechoslovak Friends,

Dear Comrades,

The working people of Moscow, the capital of our coun-
try, have come to this meeting today to voice their senti-
ments of fraternal love and to bid hearty welcome to our
dear guests— the First Secretary of the Central Commit-
tee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and the
President of the Czechoslovak Republic, Comrade Antonin
Novotny, and the leading statesmen of the Czechoslovak
Republic who have arrived with him, Comrade Vaclav Ko-
pecky, Comrade Rudolf Barak, Comrade Jifi Hendrych,
Comrade Rudolf Strehaj, Comrade Vaclav David, and
other comrades. (Prolonged applause.) In their persons,
we greet the glorious Communist Party and all the work-
ing people of Czechoslovakia. (Stormy applause.)

Dear comrades, permit me at this gathering in honour
of our dear Czechoslovak friends to fulfil the request of
the 5th Congress of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany
and convey hearty greetings to the Communist Party of
the Soviet Union and the entire Soviet people from its del-
egates. (Stormy applause.)

To our deep regret, the stay in the Soviet Union of our
dear friends is coming to an end. The Soviet people would

584

have been only too happy to have our Czechoslovak
friends prolong their stay in our country. (Prolonged ap-
plause.)

The tour of our country made by Comrade Novotny and
the other Czechoslovak comrades developed into a mani-
festation of inviolable Soviet-Czechoslovak friendship. The
splendid speeches made by Comrade Novotny at friendship
meetings in Leningrad, Tbilisi, Kiev and Stalingrad were
heard with great attention by millions of Soviet people. They
will never forget all the moving and warm meetings they
had with the representatives of the fraternal peoples of
Czechoslovakia. (Prolonged applause.)

The enthusiasm with which Soviet people everywhere
met the leaders of socialist Czechoslovakia is a token of
their sincere sympathy and inviolable friendship, of their
joy and pride for Czechoslovakia's splendid successes in
building socialism. The Soviet people rejoice at the his-
toric pronouncement of the 11th Congress of the Commu-
nist Party of Czechoslovakia to the effect that the founda-
tions of socialist society have already been essentially
laid in Czechoslovakia and that she was solving
the grand tasks of completing the building of socialism.
(Applause.)

The peoples of the Soviet Union, of all the socialist
countries, prize highly the outstanding labour achieve-
ments of our Czechoslovak brothers and the big contri-
bution made by the Czechoslovak Republic to the struggle
for world peace. Czechoslovakia is known in all, even the
most remote, corners of our country as one of our closest
friends — a reliable unit in the socialist camp. (Prolonged
applause.)

We Soviet people are proud of our friendship with the
peoples of Czechoslovakia. We value this friendship
sincerely and shall always do all we can to strengthen
and extend it further. (Stormy applause.)

The Soviet people regard the successes of the fraternal
countries in building socialism as being successes of our

585

common cause. For the socialist countries mutual assist-
ance and support is a cardinal condition for good prog-
ress towards socialism. International proletarian soli-
darity, socialist internationalism — which has come to be
the basis of state policy in the relations between the coun-
tries of the socialist camp— is an integral element in the
spiritual pattern of the builders of the new society. (Ap-
plause.)

Under the socialist system the friendship of our peo-
ples has become the concern of literally all working peo-
ple. Fraternal friendship, mutual assistance and support
shape every aspect of the relations between socialist coun-
tries. There is no facet or field in the life of our peoples
that fails to benefit by the friendship and co-operation of
the socialist countries, their mutual assistance and sup-
port. (Applause.)

The alliance of socialist countries in a fraternal com-
munity of equal states is a vital necessity. The peoples
combine their efforts to support and help each other in
building the new world, to jointly defend the gains of so-
cialism against imperialist plotting.

It is only natural that this community based on the iden-
tity of the social, economic and political system in the so-
cialist countries, the identity of their Marxist-Leninist ide-
ology and of their goals in the struggle for socialism and
peace, has nothing in common with the aggressive imper-
ialist blocs aimed against the freedom and independence
of the peoples, against peace and socialism.

The lessons of history show that political co-operation
between countries of the socialist camp is a reliable safe-
guard for their national independence and sovereignty,
and that it creates the necessary conditions in each of
them for successfully realizing their plans of peaceful so-
cialist construction.

Life also shows that the economic co-operation of these
countries, based as it is on principles of complete equality
and mutual assistance, enables each of them to utilize,

586

most rationally and fully, its natural resources and to de-
velop its productive forces. On the other hand, it enables
them to co-ordinate and combine their effort in the inter-
ests of all and to make the best of the tremendous advan-
tages of the world socialist system in order to consolidate
the economic might of the socialist camp as a whole.

The cultural co-operation of the socialist countries reci-
procally enriches the spiritual life of the peoples of each
of them and helps tremendously in the rapid and all-round
advancement of their national culture, science and tech-
nology.

All this taken together speaks convincingly of the vast
advantages which each socialist country derives from its
close co-operation and unity with all the other socialist
countries.

It is obvious that, while depending entirely on its own
strength, no country of the socialist camp could, if de-
prived of fraternal mutual assistance and support, achieve
the impressive successes in evidence today in so short
a historical time.

It is solely on the basis of unity, solidarity and all-
round co-operation that the countries of the socialist camp
can really achieve the complete triumph of socialism and
communism. Anyone unable or unwilling to understand
this, anyone acting differently, does damage to the vital
interests of his own people and of socialism!

The peoples of all the socialist countries consider it
their sacred duty to cement the might of the socialist
camp, whose common interests each of them regards also
as its own. (Applause.)

For its part, the Soviet Union is doing its best to
strengthen the socialist camp. It has always rendered dis-
interested assistance and support to all the socialist coun-
tries, and continues to do so. Our people are perfectly
well aware that by strengthening their own country, by
developing its economy, science and technology, they serve
not only their own interests, but also those of all the

587

peoples of the socialist camp. The greater the might of
the Soviet Union, the more successful its advance to its
cherished goal of communism, the stronger and more sol-
id the entire camp of peace and socialism, the more con-
vincing the impact which socialist ideas have on the work-
ing people of the capitalist world. {Prolonged applause.)

Take the facts. The launching of the Soviet artificial
earth satellites opened the eyes of new tens of millions
of people to the true state of affairs in the U.S.S.R. and
the entire socialist camp. It has served to raise still higher
the international prestige of the Soviet Union and the so-
cialist camp as a whole. In recent years the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union has done much to accelerate
the development of key industries and steeply raise agri-
culture, and to advance still more the living and cultural
standards of the working people.

Is this just a domestic affair of the Soviet people? Of
cov.se, not. The impact of these developments reaches
far beyond the frontiers of our country, for they help tre-
mendously to consolidate the forces and the internation-
al prestige of the entire socialist camp — to cement the
forces of socialism and world peace. (Prolonged applause.)

Comrades, permit me to deal with a few questions con-
cerning the contemporary international situation and the
foreign policy of our Party and the Soviet Government.

The question uppermost in the minds of men today, re-
gardless of their political convictions, social status, reli-
gion and colour, is the question of peace, the question of
what direction international developments will take.
This question is extremely important to us, Soviet
people. We approach it from the standpoint of the
Leninist postulate on peaceful co-existence.

The socialist and capitalist systems have now been co-
existing for more than forty years. There have undeniably
been, and will be, irreconcilable political and ideological
contradictions between these two systems, and there has
been, and will be, a definite struggle between them on

588

these grounds. But it is not unavoidable by any means
that this struggle should take the form of armed conflicts.
Controversial issues between states may and must be
resolved peacefully, by negotiation and mutually acceptable
agreements based on the principles of peaceful co-existence.
What does peaceful co-existence of capitalist and so-
cialist states connote? It connotes mutual respect of ter-
ritorial integrity and sovereignty, non-aggression, non-
interference in each other's domestic affairs for economic,
political or ideological reasons, equality and mutual ad-
vantage and co-existence. The principles of peaceful co-
existence have already won broad international recogni-
tion.

The governing circles of the imperialist Powers aim
their policy against peaceful co-existence. There are states-
men in the capitalist countries who deny the need of peace-
ful co-existence. But what does that mean? It means going
to war. There is no other alternative.

We do not need war. The socialist countries are growing,
rapidly developing countries. They are young, sound and
strong, and the future inevitably belongs to the young,
the growing. We need peace to build the new society. Our
countries have all the requisites for it. Our Chinese
friends have put it very aptly thus: ^Socialism is the
morning sun rising in the East, and capitalism is the
evening sun sinking in the West." (Stormy applause.)

Like a grievously sick man prepared to do anything to
prolong his life, capitalism, too, fatally ill as it is, seeks
salvation in such things as the armaments race, war prep-
arations, hydrogen bombs, and military blocs, hoping
thereby to check-rein the development of socialism and
prolong its own existence.!

Certain in the triumpn of socialism, certain that the
future belongs to it, we resolutely oppose the cold war.
Socialism does not need atomic or hydrogen bombs to as-
sert itself. Like sound seed thrown on good earth, social-
ism is yielding abundant fruit. And this causes joy to

589

millions of people all over the world. {Prolonged ap-
plause.)

Acting upon the compelling need of improving the in-
ternational situation, the Soviet Government last De-
cember approached the Western Powers with the propos-
al of calling a conference of Heads of Government, so as
to end the cold war by joint effort and pave the way for
peaceful co-existence between states.

We also suggested concrete questions for inclusion in
the agenda of the conference. These were questions which,
in our opinion, have long become ripe for settlement. In-
deed, if we take any one of them — be it immediate dis-
continuation of nuclear tests, complete rejection of the
use of nuclear weapons, the proposal of a non-aggression
pact for NATO countries and the signatories to the
Warsaw Treaty, or any of our other proposals — and
hold a poll on them among the population, they are sure to
be backed by an absolute majority. This is beyond doubt,
because settling these questions would pave the way to
lasting peace. It would end the cold war and lead to
a more sensible use of material resources in all coun-
tries with the object of raising living standards. {Ap-
plause.)

The Western governments were compelled to declare in
favour of a conference of Heads of Government. But they
proposed that it should be prepared through diplomatic
channels. We were aware from the stairt that this proposal
was made with the purpose of burying the matter of a
summit meeting in a maze of diplomatic procedure.

Developments confirmed our fears. While diplomatic
spade-work has bogged down, fables are being spread in
the Western countries about the "intractable" and "uncom-
promising" attitude of the Soviet Union, about the Soviet
Union wanting to act by diktat, and the like. And lately
much is being said about us allegedly having lost all in-
terest in a summit conference. That is a vicious lie. The
Soviet Union has not lost interest, nor could lose interest,

590

in a summit conference. It is not interested in a summit
conference per se. It views such a conference as a step
towards relieving international tension.

What makes us interested in negotiations with the
Western Powers?

It would be futile to look for reasons in the situation
within the socialist camp. Our camp is homogeneous and
united as never before. We discuss our internal matters
in our own fraternal circle, without outsiders. We are well
able to solve all matters helping to consolidate, further
the socialist states and to expedite the development of
their economy and culture. We have no difficulties in that
domain, nor do we foresee any. (Prolonged applause.)

It would also be futile to look for reasons for our inter-
est in negotiations with the Western Powers in the inter-
nal situation of the Soviet Union. That is simply absurd.
The stability of our international position is based on the
close solidarity of our peoples, the steady development of
our economy, science, technology and culture. (Applause.)
The weight of the three artificial earth satellites placed in
orbit by the Soviet Union is a symbol of our country's
weight in international affairs. (Prolonged applause.) Yet
this is only a beginning. The Soviet giant circling our plan-
et is only a pathfinder blazing the trail for still greater
successes of Soviet science and technology. (Stormy, pro-
longed applause.)

The Soviet Union's interest in negotiating with the
Western Powers is not to be explained by internal reasons
or our international position, but by human, universal con-
siderations, by the fact that we stand firmly for the peace-
ful co-existence of states with different social and politi-
cal systems. We want to remove the danger of a destruc-
tive war, to deliver the people from constant fear of a new
military conflict, and to win them a peaceful and tranquil
life. (Applause.)

The United States and its partners have set forth their
items for the agenda of a top-level conference. But, com-

591

rades, let us examine these items. For example, they want
to discuss the so-called question of the situation in the
European People's Democracies.

Everyone, even a person unfamiliar with politics, real-
izes that raising questions of that kind for discussion at
the Heads of Government conference means torpedoing
the conference. You should know, gentlemen, whom you
are going to meet. How can anyone think that we, Com-
munists, shall agree to join representatives of capitalist
countries in a discussion of how to abolish the socialist
system in any country. (Animation. Applause.)

Who do you take us for, and who do you think you are
to put things that way? (Applause.)

Let us ask our Czechoslovak friends present here what
the peoples of Czechoslovakia think of these proposals?
The Czechoslovak Government, like the governments of
the other socialist countries of Europe, has replied firmly
on behalf of its people to the imperialists concerning their
''proposal." Translated from the Czech their reply goes
something like this: Gentlemen, keep your nose out of other
people's affairs! (Stormy, prolonged applause.)

If the conference is going to be made conditional upon
questions of that sort, it is evidently better not to meet
at all, because our views are well known on that score,
and we are not going to change them. (Prolonged ap-
plause.)

Lately the imperialists have been trying to use the just
sentence passed by the Hungarian people on a handful of
traitors to whip up a storm and wreck the summit meet-
ing. Is it not clear that the judgement passed on Imre
Nagy and his accomplices is a purely internal affair of
the Hungarian people? Like every other country, the Hun-
garian People's Republic is entitled to prosecute the ene-
mies of its people.

Why were there no protests from the West when the
counter-revolutionaries in Budapest and other Hungarian
cities were killing hundreds of people and hanging Com-

592

munists and non-Communists on lamp-posts? Quite the
reverse; the imperialists were rejoicing then, because it
was mostly Communists and progressives who were being
beaten and killed, and because the outrages organized by
Nagy and his accomplices were aimed against the social-
ist system. But when in self-defence the Hungarian Peo-
ple's Republic applied its rights on lawful grounds-
through the court and not by lynching— against the ene-
mies of the Hungarian working people, the imperialists
went into hysterics.

There you see imperialist morals. They want to obscure
the issue and delude public opinion.

Why are the imperialists reluctant to negotiate with us
and reach an agreement? They fear that an agreement
with the Soviet Union and other socialist countries would
knock the bottom out of the imperialist propaganda about
the Soviet Union and the countries of the socialist camp
wanting to conquer the whole world by force of arms. If
they should acknowledge that the so-called "communist
threat" is non-existent, they will have to acknowledge the
principle of peaceful co-existence of the two systems, and to
accept the existence of the socialist countries. In that case
the entire system of aggressive pacts which they built
up— NATO, SEATO, the Baghdad Pact, etc.— will begin
to crumble. The fable of a "communist threat" is something
like a main thread knitting together the system of military
pacts. Speaking figuratively, that system is reminiscent of
a knitted article. Pull a single thread out of it and it runs
until it becomes a shapeless mass of thread. (Applause.)
The other reason why agreement with the Soviet Union
does not suit the monopolists is that any slackening of
the arms race costs them their profits. The monopolists
are not too squeamish about producing means of annihi-
lation— hydrogen bombs, aircraft and rockets; in a word,
all things in current demand. Arms are in great demand
when a cold war is in progress and international tension
has risen to boiling-point. Whereas a detente would reduce

593

the demand in means of annihilation and, consequently,
reduce the profits derived from producing armaments.

Moreover, the cold war gives the American monopo-
lists an opportunity of subjugating their allies politically
and economically, of exploiting them and saddling them
with unequal treaties and agreements. By limiting world
trade and hindering their allies from developing commer-
cial relations with the socialist countries, the U.S. monop-
olists keep them in a subject state and prevent them
from developing industries which would compete with
their own.

And yet, in spite of these and other factors impeding
an international detente, we trust that sooner or later
there will be a summit meeting, that tension will slacken
in the relations between socialist and capitalist countries,
and the principle of peaceful co-existence will triumph.
{Stormy applause.) Present capitalist rulers may be shirk-
ing an agreement, but the men who succeed them will
have no choice but to agree to a detente, and to recognize
the principle of peaceful co-existence of two different
systems. (Prolonged applause.)

We are sure that Western governing circles will sooner
or later have to take this path, because of the obvious fail-
ure of the policy "of strength." The people who want en-
during peace and confidence in the future are exerting
pressure on Western governments by urging clear-cut
steps to relieve international tension. And this pressure
will keep mounting. At present it is evidently the British
Government which is being subjected to the greatest pub-
lic pressure. Quite a number of British Labour Party mem-
bers, for example, are critical of British Government poli-
cy and duly appreciate the peaceful nature of the Soviet
foreign policy. It may be added that more and more peo-
ple from among the followers of the Conservative Party
are also displeased with the present British foreign policy.

A battle for peace and an international detente is un-
folding in all the countries of the Western bloc — from

594

Norway in the north to Italy and Greece in the south. And
increasing numbers of Americans are calling attention to
the failure of Mr. Dulles' present foreign policy and urging
a new, more realistic approach to international affairs.

One of the key issues now troubling world opinion is
that of disarmament.

As before, the Soviet Union is consistenly calling for
decisive steps in that sphere. As you Know, all our efforts
have until now unfortunately failed to yield the desired
results. Western spokesmen are resorting to a multitude
of diverse manoeuvres to check disarmament, to lead it
into a blind alley, and to torpedo it. What they like most
is to talk about control. They seek to replace disarmament
talk with talk about control and insist that control should
precede disarmament. First control— then disarmament.
First control — then easing international tension. First con-
trol— then mutual confidence. Such, in a nutshell, are their
tactics.

But it is an absurd approach, because mutual control
is an act of great trust. What does control mean? To per-
mit one state to exercise all-round control within another
means opening all one's doors to the other party, to admit
its inspectors and controllers to places considered sacred
by one's people.

In every church, at least in every Orthodox church, there
is a place before the altar which only a priest may tread.
Others, even pious people, are not supposed to go there.
Each country likewise has its altar, its sacred places
which it does not even show to all its friends, or shows
just to its closest friends — those who have won its trust.
(Applause.) I am deliberately using clerical terms here,
because our Western partners like to refer to the Bible and
to seek cover behind the Scriptures. (Animation. Applause.)

It would seem clear that we should first establish at
least a modicum of mutual trust and then proceed gradual-
ly to control and inspection. That would be the natural
approach. While our partners are setting the question on

595

its head. No, they say, admit us first to your communist
altar, and with time we'll see whether or not you ought to
be trusted, and whether or not it is worth while reducing
armaments.

Is it possible in present international circumstances,
when even a modicum of trust is lacking, to speak in
earnest about installing all-round control and inspection
as a first step? Those who put matters that way only re-
veal themselves in their true colours and show that they
have no intention of speaking in earnest about disarma-
ment, or confidence, or control. (Applause.)

If the attempt is made to establish control without con-
fidence, it will not be control but an act of intelligence
with the object of locating the adversary's vulnerable
points for an aggression. Since we have no thought of ag-
gression, we have no need of such "control." (Applause.)

We shall never relinquish the right to guard our secu-
rity. Nor do we deny this right to others. That is why we
say: Let us not begin with control. Keep out of other coun-
tries' altars until you have first proved that you may be
trusted, that you will not desecrate their sanctity and will
not strive to violate the laws of the country which you
want to inspect.

But when many politicians in the United States speak
openly of war against the Soviet Union, when they pro-
nounce spiteful speeches against our country, andjollow
this up with proposals about inspecting Soviet territory,
it sounds, in effect, like a provocation.

We declare once again that the Soviet Union favours*
control and inspection. Our proposals about establishing
control posts to prevent sudden attack, primarily at railway
junctions, highways and ports, are well known. Further-
more, we have proposed air inspection 800 kilometres
both sides of the line dividing our troops and Western
troops in Germany and over a part of Soviet territory in
the Far East and a corresponding part of U.S. territory.
The Soviet Government has proposed to the U.S. Govern-

596

ment that experts should work out practical measures to
eliminate all possibilities of sudden attack.

As confidence gradually develops between states, we
shall be ready to agree to further measures of control. And
as soon as there is complete trust between ourselves and
the Western Powers, as soon as we see that nothing is
being conspired against our country and against world
peace, we shall be ready to open all doors and to show
everything we have. But as long as these conditions are
lacking, we do not intend, and have no right, risking the
security of the socialist countries. {Stormy, prolonged
applause.)

That is our attitude on the disarmament question and
control.

Comrades, every possible development of economic con-
tacts with all countries is part and parcel of the effort to
strengthen peace and peaceful co-existence by the Soviet
Union, the Chinese People's Republic, the Republic of
Czechoslovakia and the entire socialist camp. Allow me
briefly to present our conception of the nature of interstate
economic relations.

Economic contacts, and above all barter trade, is an en-
during basis for international intercourse. Commodity ex-
change is the well-trodden path followed by all nations
since ancient times. We favour the broadest possible recip-
rocal trade with all who want to buy our commodities and
want our markets for their own goods.

Economic relations between the Soviet Union and other
countries develop in different ways, depending upon the
policy of a country towards us. There are countries with
an unfriendly policy towards us and the socialist camp,
which, for all that, think it useful to trade with us. In deal-
ing with them, we follow the policy of establishing rela-
tions based on mutually advantageous commercial opera-
tions. In this case both parties approach the negotiation
of trade agreements from the standpoint of commercial
advantage. If such an advantage is on hand, they sign

597

the agreement, pay in cash or in kind, and the deal is set-
tled. That is one form of relations.

The other form applies to dealings with underdeveloped
countries in need of economic assistance. Owing to cen-
turies of the imperialists' colonialist policy the economy of
many Asian ami African countries which recently won their
independence is very backward. The Soviet Union and
other socialist countries consider it their duty to help them
and to extend trade and all other forms of economic rela-
tions with them in every way.

Naturally, in their case we cannot say that our econom-
ic relations are based on mutual advantage. Generally
speaking, from the commercial standpoint, our economic
and technical assistance to underdeveloped countries is
even disadvantageous to us. However, we consider it a
good proposition from the standpoint of humanity, of hu-
man solidarity. (Applause.)

What is more, as our economic power grows, we shall
each year increase our assistance to the peoples of under-
developed countries. We give them credits if they ask for
them, deliver equipment against these credits, and send
them our scientists, engineers, agronomists, doctors, etc.
This is done to help their people lay a stable foundation
for their economy, to advance their national science and
culture. We call this disinterested assistance and, indeed,
there is no interest in it for us. (Applause.) There is, of
course, a kind of "interest" (I put the word in quotes), but
it has nothing to do with material interest, with exploita-
tion and profit. By giving them economic, technical and
other assistance, we give these countries, which have
shaken off the colonial yoke, a chance to keep clear of un-
equal transactions with the colonialists, to avoid begging
for their favours and surrendering their economy to them;
we thereby give them a chance to resist all attempts of
restoring the old-time colonial relations even in modi-
fied form. By helping these countries to rehabilitate
their industry, to develop their economy, to improve

598

their living standard, we help them to strengthen their
independence, won in struggle against the imperialist
colonialists.

India, Afghanistan, Burma, the United Arab Republic
and some other countries are building industrial plants,
power stations, ports, canals and roads on Soviet credits
and with Soviet equipment, technical consultations, etc.
All this accelerates their economic development and re-
flects beneficially on the material and cultural standards
of their population.

The peoples receiving help from the socialist countries
appreciate its genuine character. And it is only natural
that this should infuriate the imperialists.

The capitalist countries also "help" underdeveloped
countries, but in doses and on terms that prevent the re-
cipient country from building up its own industry, its econ-
omy, leaving it in continued political and economic de-
pendence upon one capitalist country or another, and, more
often than not, upon many of them at once. Furthermore,
this help is used chiefly to build military bases, and to
increase the armed forces.

The economic assistance rendered by the Soviet Union
and the other socialist countries to the underdeveloped
countries of Asia and Africa is causing mounting alarm
in the colonialist camp. The colonialists are fussing about
in these countries, scaring timid people with claptrap
about the dangers of our assistance. In this they now have
zealous helpers in the Yugoslav leadership, who try to
cast doubts upon the Soviet Union observing its economic
aid commitments.

Lately, Yugoslav statesmen have been cutting loose
about the question of Soviet credits to Yugoslavia. The at-
titude and concrete proposals of the Soviet Government
on this score are set forth in documents published in the
Soviet press.

The Yugoslav leadership put their own construction
upon our proposals. They say that we are violating an

599

equal agreement. Yet if one of the signatories wants to re-
vise an agreement this means that the treaty does not
satisfy it. By virtue of changed circumstances each sig-
natory is entitled to raise the question of revising an
agreement. We want our agreements with Yugoslavia to be
based on equality and mutual benefit. In other words, we
want them to follow, rather than contradict, the formula
defined by Comrade Tito in his speech at the 7th Congress
of the Yugoslav League of Communists.

We want the terms of our economic relations to be real-
ly reciprocal. Who would reject such terms? No one has
ever rejected advantageous terms.

Today the Yugoslav leaders are trying to exert pressure
upon us and insist on credit benefits. They go so far as to
appeal on this score to Western opinion. The Yugoslavs
know very well that the terms on which they have been re-
ceiving credits from the Soviet Union are very favourable
to them and unfavourable to us. Do not, therefore, try to
force us. Nothing will come of it, because we do not want
agreements whose terms are damaging to our socialist
economy and favourable only to the other side. Yet we are
being required to withdraw resources from our own econ-
omy and thereby to reduce the means of developing it.
In other words, we are being required to cause damage to
our own economy in the interests of the other side. Where
do you see a reciprocal basis in that?

We are surprised to hear that our proposals are alleged-
ly illegal, and that we must pay a kind of forfeit. I ask
you: Why are they illegal? After all, even laws are revised
and amended when necessary. Even a marriage contract,
which is considered sacred, has to be broken some-
times. (Animation.) If one party produces evidence that
the other party has not lived up to its marital duties, even
the church recognizes the right of annulling such a mar-
riage. (Animation. Applause.) Some people, it is true,
act as follows: After first accepting the bonds of matri-
mony, they later break these bonds without even inform-

600

ing the other party about it and pay no forfeit whatsoever.
(Laughter.)

We are ready to trade, and shall trade, on a mutually
advantageous basis. But the Yugoslav leaders evidently
wish to be given things without giving in return, rather
than deal on a basis of give-and-take. Our view is that
relations between socialist countries should be based on the
principle of mutual assistance. What the Yugoslav leaders
want, however, is for the socialist countries to give them
all they need, and they may then be expected to say
that their economy is outstripping that of other countries
by virtue of the so-called special "Yugoslav road" in de-
veloping socialism. (Animation. Applause.)

Yugoslav leaders, and Comrade Tito in person in his
recent Labin speech, are trying to prove that we are con-
tradicting ourselves, and putting a different definition upon
the use of credits given by capitalist countries. Look, they
try to say, how Moscow flays them, the Yugoslavs, for tak-
ing U.S. credits, while it is no less eager to receive Western
credits, for has not Khrushchov recently approached Eisen-
hower on this score.

Rest assured, Comrade Tito, that Khrushchov did not
ask for hand-outs. He spoke as equal to equal and proposed
mutually advantageous terms. We do not ask anyone
for alms. We do not need alms. We do not accept them.
(Stormy, prolonged applause.)

We are building up the might of our country by our-
selves, and are paving the way for even more successful
progress in the future.

We have approached the Government of the United
States because we want to normalize and develop eco-
nomic relations between our two countries. We are able to
sell our raw materials and goods, and to buy from any
country, and that country will benefit from it. The people
of America, France, Britain, West Germany and Italy
stand to benefit from developing trade with the Soviet
Union. It is beneficial for all nations to develop their trade.

601

The broader trade becomes, the more remote the chance
of a military conflict between nations. (Prolonged ap-
plause.)

U.S. politicians often shed crocodile tears about the So-
viet Government allegedly doing too little to develop the
consumer industries. So we have decided to put their at-
titude to a practical test and to demonstrate what the
U.S. imperialists are really concerned about: the welfare
of the Soviet people— that the Soviet people should con-
sume more— or undermining our country's economic po-
tential, crippling its defence, and thereby getting a chance
of carrying on their cold war policy and dictating terms
from "positions of strength"?

If American business circles want to accept our proposals
and to make a profit from our orders, that is their affair. In
either case our country has always been, and remains, a
truly independent country and will develop its economy,
will follow its own path. (Stormy applause.)

If the United States fails to understand that, if it refuses
to do business with us, we shall carry out our plans just
as well without it, because our economic development pro-
gramme is drawn up irrespective of outside assistance
and the participation of capitalist countries.

The Yugoslav leadership shape their relations with the
capitalist countries quite differently. However, those
Yugoslav leaders who still have a vestige of proletarian
conscience are likewise aware of this. They are unable
to make ends meet in their speeches, and substitute rhe-
toric for proofs. They cannot explain why the imperialist
countries, which hate socialism and strain every sinew to
crush the revolutionary movement, give such "generous"
aid and credits to a socialist country. Yet the explanation
is very simple, and clear to anyone, even if he may be un-
familiar with theory, as long as he is endowed with class
intuition.

The imperialists do not by any means help Yugoslavia
with the object of cementing the socialist system and sup-

602

porting the communist movement. They do it to fatten, to
bribe those forces which, though they style themselves as
Marxist-Leninist forces, are willing to oppose the socialist
countries, and primarily the Soviet Union. This aid is a
tribute for the policy of splitting the socialist camp.
The American senators themselves make no secret of that.
This, Comrade Tito, is where the difference lies in the
question of credits, and surely you know it.

rn this connection I recall our talks with Comrade Tito
in Bucharest, in Yugoslavia, and also in the Crimea, where
we did not spend our time hunting at all, as was report-
ed, but where we talked politics. The hunting was meant
to reassure certain people in the West who follow the pol-
icy of Yugoslavia with a jealous eye. Comrade Tito said
at the time that soon they would no longer need Western
economic assistance, that they were already in lesser need
of it, and that we had ostensibly failed to grasp that. I
voiced my personal opinion and the opinion of other So-
viet comrades that when capitalist countries give credits
to a socialist country and the recipient country keeps in
step with all the socialist countries, we see nothing wrong
in taking credits. We are not against credits in principle.
The important thing is what their terms are, and for what
purposes they are given. The capitalists help Yugoslavia,
they give credits to it, because they want to inject a germ
of decay into our camp with the object of splitting the so-
cialist countries and the Communist parties. We oppose
credits on these terms and condemn anyone willing to
abandon revolutionary principles for a mess of pottage.
{Prolonged applause.)

Anyone with class intuition, may he be ever so weak in
theory, will see why the imperialist countries hate us so,
and why they carry on their fight against the socialist
camp. But there is a tremendous distance between the im-
perialist wish to destroy the socialist camp— the strong-
hold of peace and socialism— and its realization. We are
strong and are not to be intimidated by threats.

603

When we speak of our strength it is not because we wish
to threaten anyone. Leave us alone, for we have no inten-
tion of touching anyone. Together with our Czechoslovak
friends, together with all the other socialist countries, to-
gether with people of good will the world over, we shall do
everything in our power for the triumph of the great cause
of world peace. (Stormy applause.)

We are well aware that the stronger we make our so-
cialist camp and the more closely we work together for
the victory of our common cause, the harder it will be for
the enemies of peace to start a military adventure.

Comrade Novotny has put it splendidly in his report to
the 11th Congress of the Communist Party of Czechoslo-
vakia:

"We shall not reach our goal, unless we think every
minute not only of the benefit of our republic, but also
of the benefit of all the fraternal countries and of social-
ism throughout the world, unless we always see our own
strength in the growing strength of the whole socialist
camp, and render each other all-round disinterested sup-
port. It is only along this path of close international
co-operation that all the historic victories of socialism
have been scored in the past, and along this path alone
shall we score new victories in the future." (Stormy ap-
plause.)

We are very happy that you have come, our dear Czecho-
slovak friends and brothers. For this visit will serve to
further our friendship and to extend our all-round co-oper-
ation, and to cement still more the forces of our entire
socialist camp. We can proudly say that the fraternal re-
lations between our peoples are an example of the new,
socialist relations. No force on earth will ever be able
to destroy the friendship of our peoples. (Stormy, pro-
longed applause.)

Long live and flourish the peoples of the socialist Czecho-
slovak Republic! (Stormy, prolonged applause.)

604

Long live the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia— the
organizer and inspirer of the victories of the Czechoslo-
vak peoples! (Stormy, prolonged applause.)

Long live the eternal inviolable friendship of the peoples
of the Czechoslovak Republic and the Soviet Union, of all
the peoples of the socialist camp! {Stormy, prolonged ap-
plause.)

Long live world peace! {Stormy, prolonged applause,
ovation. All rise.)

SPEECH

AT LUNCHEON IN HONOUR

OF GOVERNMENT DELEGATION OF AUSTRIAN

REPUBLIC

July 22, 1958

Mr. Federal Chancellor,

Mr. Vice-Chancellor,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Friends,

Permit me- on behalf of the Soviet Government, and on
my own behalf, to welcome the Federal Chancellor of Aus-
tria, Mr. Julius Raab, Vice-Chancellor Mr. Bruno Pitter-
mann, the Foreign Minister of Austria, Mr. Leopold Figl,
the State Secretary of the Austrian Foreign Ministry, Mr.
Bruno Kreisky and their party.

We welcome the friendly visit of the Austrian govern-
ment delegation to our country.

It is more than three years since the Austrian State Treats-
was concluded. We are happy to note that in these years
friendly relations have developed between the U.S.S.R. and
Austria, and that the political, economic and cultural con-
tacts between our two countries have expanded. Both sides
have come to see that such relations are beneficial and ac-
cord with the basic interests of the peoples of our coun-
tries.

We shall continue basing our relations with Austria on
friendship and equality, non-interference in internal affairs,
and respect of sovereignty and national independence. The
Soviet Union develops its economic and cultural relations

606

with Austria without any political strings whatsoever, on
a basis of complete equality and mutual advantage. I
should like to stress that the U.S.S.R. wants to improve and
develop its relations with Austria without prejudicing Aus-
tria's relations with other countries.

Austrian leaders take a sober view of the dangerous sit-
uation obtaining in the world in connection with the
events in the Middle East.

I should like to say that we have taken satisfaction
from the statement made by Federal Chancellor Mr, Julius
Raab before his departure for Moscow, to the effect that
in these circumstances of great international strain Aus-
tria would seek to co-operate in good faith and within her
powers to relieve political tension.

The facts show that some imperialist countries spurn
the sovereign rights of other countries. In unfolding their
aggression in the Middle East, for example, the U.S. air
force is known to have violated Austrian air space. This
lawless act of the U.S. Government obviously contradicts
the principles of international law and grossly violates the
Austrian State Treaty, under which the United States, to-
gether with Britain, France and the U.S.S.R., has under-
taken to respect the independence and territorial integrity
of Austria. As you know, our country has condemned the
acts of American top brass. The Soviet Union refuses to re-
concile itself with this attitude towards international trea-
ties.

The policy of permanent neutrality guarantees Austria's
security and provides the Austrian people with the benefits
of peaceful development. In the present circumstances the
position of neutral Austria is unquestionably much more
stable than that of any of the minor states which have been
drawn into NATO. The Austrian people, who have gone
through the terrors of many wars and have been deprived
of their statehood by the Anschluss, are benefiting more
and more from the advantages of neutrality, which guaran-
tees them peaceful labour and independence.

607

We all know thai there are forces within and outside
your country which are trying to push Austria off its neu-
tralist path and to make it dependent upon other states.
Under the pretext of discussing the nature of Austria's
neutrality certain Austrians speak out against its perma-
nence by declaring that "Austrian neutrality is a transient
affair" and that "it is not a commitment made by Austria
under international law." It is hard to understand why pol-
iticians who consider themselves Austrians make such
statements. Apparently, they take their cue from someone
else.

The statements of the Austrian Government that Austria
would adhere strictly to her voluntarily adopted principles
of permanent neutrality and resist efforts to violate it,
are to be welcomed.

In our opinion, neutral Austria could be a big force in
the efforts to preserve peace if she would adhere firmly to
the policy of neutrality and would as a neutral country pro-
mote mutual understanding between peoples.

The Soviet Union has due regard for Austria's neutrality,
and will support all efforts of the Austrian Government to
strengthen their country's neutrality and independence.

We hope that the visit of the Austrian government del-
egation to the U.S.S.R. and a frank exchange of opinions
between the Austrian and Soviet leaders will serve to pro-
mote the further development of friendly relations between
the U.S.S.R. and Austria and to achieve better mutual un-
derstanding and confidence between our peoples.

Permit me to propose a toast to the health of Federal
Chancellor Mr. Raab, to the health of Vice-Chancellor Mr.
Pittermann, Foreign Minister Mr. Figl, State Secretary Mr.
Kreisky, and to the health of all our Austrian guests!

To friendship and all-round co-operation between the
peoples of the Soviet Union and Austria!

SPEECH

AT RECEPTION AT EMBASSY OF POLISH PEOPLE'S

REPUBLIC ON 14th ANNIVERSARY OF DAY

OF NATIONAL RENASCENCE

July 22, 1958

In the first place allow me to thank the esteemed Ambas-
sador, Comrade Tadeusz Gede, for the invitation to attend
the reception on the occasion of the national holiday of
the Polish People's Republic— the 14th anniversary of Po-
land's Day of National Renascence.

We are very glad that our friend, the Polish People's
Republic, is confidently advancing along the road of so-
cialist construction. We can see and hear its firm steps as
we feel our own heartbeat.

The friendship between our countries is growing and
gaining in strength. And that is very good, because the
stronger our friendly relations become, and the closer the
countries of the socialist camp rally together, the more
confidently do we all advance to our great goal and so
much greater are the successes scored by the peoples of
our countries. The peoples of all the socialist countries, in-
cluding the people of the Polish People's Republic and
those of the Soviet Union, are interested in strengthening
our fraternal friendship. The friendship between the social-
ist countries is one of the potent sources of our strength,
one of the inexhaustible reservoirs for the successes
of each of our countries.

These are good times in which we are living. As during
a great spring flood, the ice is now breaking up, everything

609

is on the move, everything is forging ahead in its historical
development. The age-old ice of the colonial regime also
has cracked and is breaking up before our eyes in quite a
number of countries. The peoples are casting off and
breaking the chains of colonialism. In vain are the efforts
of those who would like to curb the liberation struggle of
the peoples who have risen against age-old colonial op-
pression. As the spring waters break the winter ice on fro-
zen rivers, so the peoples of the colonial countries and im-
perialist dependencies are breaking the hateful order es-
tablished in their countries by alien enslavers. The colo-
nialist policy of the imperialists is tottering and breaking
up and this drives them to violent fury.

We revolutionaries, followers of Marx, Engels and Lenin,
rejoice that the colonial peoples have risen in resolute
struggle against their oppressors, against the colonialists,
and that they wish to be masters of their own destiny. We
hail their movement, sympathize with them in their libera-
tion struggle and want to do everything to help them
achieve their legitimate and noble aim — the liberation of
their countries and national independence. We wish -the
peoples of these countries to be masters of their own
national wealth, to ensure for themselves a state structure
in their own countries that is dictated by their national
interests.

Great changes are taking place in our days. Few expect-
ed that the Baghdad Pact would so soon cease to exist.
The situation that existed only yesterday is today complete-
ly different. Baghdad was only recently a mainstay of the
imperialist camp but with the coming of July 14 the very
same Baghdad became odious to the imperialist Powers,
and they wish to strangle the Iraq Republic, and to halt the
national movement of the Arab world. But they won't suc-
ceed; it is beyond their powers.

We acclaim the Government of the Iraq Republic, we
acclaim the Prime Minister of the Iraq Republic, Abdel Ka-

610

rim Kassem, for his courage and determination, for his
devotion to his people and fine character— he does not fear
the imperialists.

That is fine. I think that the representatives of the impe-
rialist camp present here, the journalists, also will under-
stand me correctly. We want peace throughout the world,
we do not need war. The sooner you understand us, the
better for you, as journalists, and at the same time the
better and more useful will it be in general for the cause of
peace.

War is the last recourse of desperate men. Just as a man
stricken by an incurable disease is ready to do anything,
ready to undergo any operation in the hope of saving his
life, so the imperialists, too, are ready to go to war as a
last resort. But even this recourse and this operation will
not save the capitalist system. Karl Marx proved that
mankind can get rid of all the misfortunes engendered by
capitalism only by taking the road of socialist develop-
ment. The Soviet Union was the first to embark on this
road; it was followed by other countries of the socialist
camp.

The Arab peoples who have risen in resolute struggle
against imperialism are waging this struggle not under the
Marxist banner, but under the colours of the national-liber-
ation movement. How they will order their life afterwards
is their own affair. We greet them as they are today — fight-
ers against colonialism, against imperialism, who demand
that the jackboots of the alien invader should not trample
upon their soil.

Recently Mr. Nasser, President of the United Arab Re-
public, paid a visit here. Our talk was pleasant and useful.
I am a Communist and he is the leader of the Arab nation-
al-liberation movement. He does not share our political
views. But when we exchanged opinions on the situation in
the Middle East there was understanding between us. I un-
derstood him and he understood me. What did we talk

611

about? We discussed how to stop the imperialists, how to
prevent them from unleashing a war.

You may rest assured that we shall do everything to
avert war in the Middle East. We shall do everything pos-
sible for the newly born Iraq Republic to grow stronger.
The future social system in that republic is the business of
the people of Iraq. The Soviet Union has only one desire:
it wants the Iraq Republic to be independent, to grow
stronger, to develop its economy and prosper.

Mikoyan: You have given away all the "secrets."

Khrushchov: These are the "secrets" about which we
talked with President Nasser. I know the correspondents
will ask about that, so I am meeting them half-way and
telling them what we discussed with the President of the
United Arab Republic, Mr. Nasser. The Ambassador of the
United Arab Republic, Mr. el-Kouni, is here. He was
present at our talks. If you are not satisfied with my
answer, you. can ask him.

We would like the leaders of the United States and Brit-
ain to show wisdom, to display an understanding of the
changed conditions in the world, and of the spirit of the
times, and to withdraw their troops from the Lebanon and
Jordan.

One can imagine how Jordan "rejoices" at the entry of
British troops which two years ago were driven from that
country by the people. The question arises: Who asked for
British troops to be brought back to Jordan? It is said
that King Hussein requested this. But it is high time to
realize that kings who lose the confidence of their people
will not be able to retain their power with the help of for-
eign bayonets. Russia, too, had a tsar but what happened?
The people overthrew him.

I shall be betraying no secrets if I declare thai all kings
and tsars who in their policy ignore the interests of
their peoples, who depend on foreign bayonets, will not
be tolerated by the people and will be overthrown by
them.

612

Why did American armed forces invade the Lebanon? It
is said that this was done at the request of President Cha-
rnoun. The ground has slipped from under the feet of Pres-
ident Chamoun, he has lost the confidence of his people.
He wants to prolong his stay in power with the help of
American bayonets. It is not for us to wish him success in
this. We wish the Lebanese people success in their strug-
gle for their freedom and independence, we wish them
to be masters of their own country and of their destiny,
and to dispose of the wealth of their homeland them-
selves.

As for the situation in the socialist camp, our affairs
are progressing quite well — better than ever before. He for
whom this is glad news may rejoice, and he for whom
these are unpleasant tidings may be chagrined, our situa-
tion will not be affected. Industry in the Soviet Union
is on a steep upgrade, a very good crop of grain and
other produce has been grown on the fields of our coun-
try.

We rejoice in the unity of the peoples in each socialist
country, the solidarity of the peoples of the entire socialist
camp.

What else do we need? We need peace.

We say to the representatives of capitalist countries: If
you capitalist gentlemen are confident that your system is
strong, that it is unshakable, let us compete peacefully.
Demonstrate in action the advantages of your capitalist
system and we shall demonstrate the advantages of the
socialist system. The system which ensures better living
conditions for man is the system that will win. If you
are confident of winning this "battle," let us match our
strength in peaceful competition.

Our socialist system is young, fresh and strong.
Socialism is confidently advancing—to it belongs the
future.

Allow me to propose a toast to our friends, the friendly
Polish People's Republic, the Polish United Workers' Par-

613

ty, its Central Committee, our very close friend Wladys-
law Gomulka, the State Council of the Polish People's Re-
public and its President Alexander Zawadski, the Govern-
ment of the Polish People's Republic, and Chairman of the
Council of Ministers Jozef Cyrankiewicz. I toast our friend,
the Ambassador of the Polish People's Republic in Moscow,
Tadeusz Gede, and the entire staff of the Embassy who
have so kindly invited us here.

(N. S. Khrushchov's speech was repeatedly interrupted
by enthusiastic applause.)

REPLIES

TO QUESTIONS PUT BY KINGSBURY SMITH,

VICE-PRESIDENT AND GENERAL DIRECTOR

OF UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL AGENCY

July 22, 1958

On July 22, Kingsbury Smith, Vice-President and Gen-
eral Director of the United Press International Agency,
posed some questions to N. S. Khrushchov, Chairman of
the U.S.S.R. Council of Ministers. Below we publish
N. S. Khrushchov's replies to the questions of Kingsbury
Smith.

Question: Would you agree to expand the composition of
the top-level conference, which you proposed, so that this
conference takes the form of a U.N. Security Council meet-
ing in accordance with Article 28 of the Charter and under
the conditions that the Council would appoint a subcommit-
tee consisting of the Heads of Government of the United
Kingdom, France, the U.S.S.R., the U.S.A., and would also
invite the head of the Indian Government to participate in
the discussion of the situation in the Middle East as an
interested party?

Answer: Your considerations concerning the method of
discussing the question of the situation in the Middle
East are interesting. At present a tense situation resulting
from U.S. and British intervention has arisen in this area
creating a real threat to peace and security. Under these
conditions further procrastination in considering the
question of measures to avert a world conflict would be
criminal.

615

Guided by these considerations, the Soviet Government
in its Message of July 19 proposed the immediate calling
of a conference of the Heads of Government of the U.S.S.R.,
the U.S.A., Great Britain, France, and India, with the par-
ticipation of the U.N. Secretary-General. This proposal has
won wide support in all countries of the world.

You express the thought that the meeting of the Heads
of Government should be held within the framework of the
U.N. Security Council. This is not contrary to our views.
The Soviet Government, as implied in its Message of July
19, considers that no action should be taken circumventing
the United Nations, which is called upon to safeguard
the peace and security of the peoples. We consider that at
present the issue is not one concerning the form of a con-
ference of Heads of Government, but rather one concerning
the immediate measures to be taken to remove the danger
of war and to give the peoples of the Arab countries an op-
portunity to build their life without foreign interference.
In this respect your considerations are useful and construc-
tive. I would like to stress particularly that the participa-
tion of Mr. Nehru, Head of the Government of India, in this
conference would undoubtedly facilitate the achievement
of decisions in the interest of peace.

Question: If the reply to the first question is a positive
one, then would you agree to the meeting of such a sub-
committee being held in the U.N. building in Geneva not
later than the end of the current month?

Answer: The matter concerning a place of meeting of the
Heads of Government is not an essential one and does not
play a major role. As for the Soviet side, we are prepared
to meet immediately at any place, including Geneva and
New York.

Question: Will you personally participate in such a meet-
ing if the other Heads of Government are present?

Answer: If Prime Minister Macmillan, President of the
Council of Ministers de Gaulle, and President Eisenhower
participate in the conference, then the Soviet Union will

616

be represented at this conference by the Chairman of the
Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R. It stands to reason
that the Soviet Government firmly hopes that Mr. Nehru,
Prime Minister of India, will also participate in the con-
ference.

July 22, 1958
Pravda, July 24, 1958

SPEECH

AT DINNER GIVEN

BY EMBASSY OF AUSTRIAN REPUBLIC

July 23, 1958

Esteemed Mr. Federal Chancellor,

Esteemed Mr. Vice-Chancellor,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The experience of the last few years shows that meetings
between Soviet and Austrian statesmen have invariably
benefited the peoples of both countries. We are sure that
the present visit of the Austrian government delegation to
Moscow will serve further to develop and strengthen the
friendly relations obtaining between our countries.

The Soviet people have the very best of sentiments for the
people of Austria. They are sincerely eager to further develop
and strengthen Soviet-Austrian relations. Our country has
always consistently given its support to the integrity and
independence of the Austrian state. It did so in 1938, when
our Government firmly condemned Hitler Germany's
aggression against Austria. It did so during the grim years
of war against Hitlerism. It did so after your country was
liberated, when the Soviet Union urged a just settlement
of the Austrian question. You may rest assured, ladies and
gentlemen, that the Soviet Union will maintain this atti-
tude in the future as well.

Today, we can all state with satisfaction that Austria
did right when she adopted neutrality. It benefited your
people and your state. The Soviet people sincerely wish

618

that you may live in peace and friendship with all nations,
that you may conduct an independent foreign policy and
assist in relieving international tension.

It is gratifying to note that our governments are
in agreement concerning the need to preserve and
strengthen peace, and avert a destructive atomic war. In
our time everybody is deeply concerned over the course
international developments will take in the future— whether
it will be a course of slackening tension and cementing
peace or of exacerbating the international situation, lead-
ing to the terrors of a new war.

Both the Soviet people and the Austrian people do not
want war. They want a stronger peace throughout the
world. That is a splendid foundation for close co-operation
between us in the struggle for preserving and cementing
peace.

Allow me to propose a toast to the further development
and strengthening of the friendship between our peoples,
to our co-operation in the struggle for world peace.

To the health of Federal Chancellor Mr. Raab, to the
health of Vice-Chancellor Mr. Pittermann, Foreign Minister
Mr. Figl, State Secretary of the Foreign Ministry Mr. Kreis-
ky, to the health of our Austrian guests!

SPEECH

AT KREMLIN RECEPTION IN HONOUR

OF GOVERNMENT DELEGATION

OF AUSTRIAN REPUBLIC

July 24, 1958

Esteemed Mr. Chancellor,

Esteemed Mr. Vice-Chancellor,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Friends,

We have had a useful and fruitful exchange of opinions
with our esteemed guests from Austria. The outcome of our
negotiations is recorded in the Joint Soviet-Austrian Com-
munique just signed by us, which testifies to the further
strengthening of friendship and mutual confidence between
our countries. In our frank and friendly conversations we
touched upon a num'ber of important questions concerning
Soviet-Austrian relations and to the international situa-
tion, and can note with satisfaction that our views coincide
in the matters discussed. As far as we, Soviet representa-
tives, are concerned, we are pleased with the outcome
of our talks. I think that our guests, too, are pleased with
the results of their trip to Moscow.

The Soviet Union and Austria have different social and
political systems. But does this prevent our peoples from
living in peace, developing their economic relations and
strengthening contacts in science, culture and sport? Our
relations are an object lesson that differing social systems
are no obstacle to friendship and co-operation. The rela-

620

tions between the Soviet Union and Austria are a concrete
practical example of the application of the principles of
peaceful co-existence, when two countries with different
social and political systems live in peace and friendship
and do not interfere in each other's domestic affairs.

An alarming international situation has arisen at present.
The Soviet Union pursues its peace policy consistently and
works unremittingly with other peaceful countries to avert
the outbreak of a new war. We are deeply convinced that
the peoples will uphold the cause of peace if they actively
combat all attempts to start a new war. The forces of peace
have grown and have gained strength so much that they
are capable of curbing any aggressor, of preventing war.
But this is not easy, because alongside active friends of
peace there are still reckless people who not only dream of
a new war, but are preparing one. Unfortunately, these
reckless men occupy posts of prominence in some countries.
For this reason, the nations must be vigilant

The neutral countries are called upon to play a big part
in preserving peace and improving the international situa-
tion. They cannot keep aloof when other peaceful nations
are working to prevent war and achieve lasting peace.

The Soviet people welcome the contribution which Aus-
tria is making and, we hope, will continue to make to the
cause of preserving and consolidating peace. Co-operation
of the Soviet Union and Austria in the struggle for peace
and a further development of economic and cultural rela-
tions between them are a good and reliable basis on which
to build Soviet-Austrian friendship with benefit to both
peoples.

I raise a toast to the active consolidation of all peace-
ful forces the world over in the struggle against war, for
peace, to peaceful co-existence of states, to friendship and
co-operation between peoples, to still greater friendship
between the Soviet and Austrian peoplesl

To the health of Federal Chancellor Mr. Raab, to the
health of Vice-Chancellor Mr. Pittermann, Foreign Minister

621

Mr. Figl and State Secretary Mr. Kreisky; to the health of
our Austrian guests; to the health of the esteemed Austrian
Ambassador to the Soviet Union, Mr. Bischoff!

To the health of the President of the Austrian Republic,
Mr. Adolf Scharf!

(N. S. Khrushchov's speech was enthusiastically ap-
plauded.)

SPEECH

ON DEPARTURE FROM MOSCOW OF GOVERNMENT

DELEGATION OF AUSTRIAN REPUBLIC

July 28, 1958

Esteemed Mr. Raab,

Esteemed Mr. Pittermann,

Esteemed Mr. Figl, Mr. Kreisky and all our Austrian
guests,

Today you are leaving the Soviet Union and returning
home. We were gratified at meeting you and holding con-
versations which have led to a further improvement in Aus-
tro-Soviet relations, and to still better mutual understand-
ing.

The agreement reached between us on economic questions
will give fresh impetus to an all-round development of
business contacts between our countries. It is good to note
that in the course of our conversations we discovered that
our points of view coincide on quite a number of interna-
tional issues directly related to the struggle for peace and
the relaxation of international tension.

Thus, the development of economic relations and the
identity of our interests in questions of preserving and
strengthening peace and international security are a point
of departure for a further development of relations be-
tween our countries based on the principles of peaceful co-
existence, based on Austria's declared neutrality.

Our meetings and talks have again confirmed the useful-
ness of personal contacts between the leading statesmen

623

of Austria and the Soviet Union. They showed that the
questions that arise between us can be successfully settled
in the atmosphere of confidence and mutual understanding
which has been established between us. Future personal
contacts between us will unquestionably be as useful and
fruitful.

In this connection I should like to express our sincere
gratitude to Mr. Raab and Mr. Pittermann for their kind
invitation to visit Austria. You have asked us, Mr. Federal
Chancellor, not to "leave behind" Comrade Mikoyan when
we go to Austria. I think that you will not object if, apart
from not "leaving him behind", there are a few other lead-
ing statesmen we shall not "leave behind"; lest they be
jealous of Comrade Mikoyan for being the only one to visit
your wonderful country.

Allow me to wish you good health and a happy journey!

Until we meet again, gentlemen! Auf Wiedersehenl

INTERVIEW
WITH INDIAN JOURNALISTS

July 29, 1958

N. S. Khrushchev, Chairman of the U.S.S.R. Council of
Ministers, on July 29 received a group of editors and cor-
respondents of Indian newspapers and magazines who
had attended the Stockholm World Congress for Disarma-
ment and International Co-operation.

In the course of their talk N. S. Khrushchov replied to
questions put by the Indian journalists. Published below
is a record of the interview.

Khrushchov: I am happy to welcome you to Soviet soil.

Jagjeet Singh Anand: We are grateful to you for finding
the time to receive us, in spite of the tense international
situation, which is no doubt taking up a great, deal of your
time.

Our people remember you very well as a good friend of
our country ever since you visited India in 1955. They par-
ticularly remember yourisaying that should we ever be in
trouble, we could appeal to you across the mountains and
help would be forthcoming from the Soviet Union.

Khrushchov: Our trip to India on a friendship visit was
very pleasant. The Indian people, the Central Government
of the Republic of India and the governments of the
provinces extended friendly hospitality to us. As envoys
of the Soviet Union we were received by the peace-loving
Indian people with exceptional cordiality and genuine

625

sincerity. We shall always remember our stay in India.
In our country envoys from India are invariably accorded
a most cordial reception and friendly hospitality and at-
tention; they are welcomed as honoured guests.

Anand: The people of India greatly appreciate the pres-
ent attitude of the Soviet Union with regard to the situa-
tion in the Middle East and they are also grateful that the
Soviet Union is displaying firmness, on the one hand, and
on the other hand, is not succumbing to provocations. More-
over, the people of India greatly appreciate the Soviet
Government's initiative in proposing a summit conference
and especially the Soviet Union's initiative in inviting
Prime Minister Nehru to that conference. But now, when
the Western Powers have shown that they evidently do not
want India to take part in such a meeting and when, it
seems, they are trying to prevent the holding of this meet-
ing, what, in your opinion, are the prospects for the devel-
opment of international relations?

Khrushchov: At present, it is better to wait before defin-
ing the prospects because relations between countries are
in a state of crisis. The following example will make it clear.
When a state of crisis occurs in a sick organism, the
doctors who are taking steps to cure the patient have to
wait for a certain period of time in order to get a clearer
picture. Will the bacilli that are undermining the patient's
health win the day, or will the organism overcome the di-
sease, counteract the deleterious effect of the bacilli that
are ravaging it? Similarly, it would appear that at the pres-
ent time we political leaders also need a certain amount
of time in order to determine the direction which the devel-
opment of international relations will take — for better or
for worse. I am convinced, however, that the organism is
so strong — I mean the forces fighting for peace —
that it will vanquish ihe colonialist bacilli. The peace-lov-
ing peoples will rebuff the bellicose colonialists and the ag-
gressors will be compelled to reckon with the forces fight-
ing for peace, against war and colonialism,

626

Anand S. Jain: When President Nasser returned recently
from Moscow, he said at a press conference in Damascus
that certain decisions had been made during the meeting
with you in Moscow. We know nothing about the nature of
those decisions, however. Would it be possible for you to
elaborate on this subject?

Khrushchov: He did not say that decisions had been
made. The adoption of decisions is the function of govern-
ments. During the visit of Gamal Abdel Nasser, President
of the United Arab Republic, to Moscow, views were ex-
changed on the situation that has arisen in the Middle
East. There were no differences in our assessment of this
situation which has resulted from the aggression of the
United States and Britain in the Middle East; we shared
the same views. We exchanged opinions on the type of
measures to be taken against the aggression by the colon-
ialists in order to prevent it from spreading, to curb it and
to compel the aggressor countries to recall their troops in
order to create normal conditions in the countries of the
Middle East. The peoples of these countries should govern
their countries themselves and use their wealth as they
desire, without foreign interference in their internal affairs.
We agreed that it was necessary to take all measures to
safeguard peace, to guarantee the independence of the
Arab countries.

Anand: Our people adhere to the principles of non-vio-
lence. Our civilization is an ancient one and we attach
great importance to moral principles. We consider that the
Soviet Union's decision on the unilateral ending of nuc-
lear weapons tests confirms the adherence of the Soviet
Union to high moral principles. This is also confirmed by
the fact that the Soviet Union, even after the Western
Powers have continued with their nuclear weapons tests,
has not undertaken another series of tests of its own.

We also consider that the Soviet Union's attitude with
regard to the present international crisis is likewise distin-
guished by high moral qualities and constitutes support

627

for the ideals of non-violence and the ideals of the strug-
gle for peace.

In this connection we would like to ask Mr. Khrushchov
what forms, in his opinion, could be assumed by joint ac-
tions of the Soviet people, the people of India and the peo-
ples of other Eastern countries for the purpose of main-
taining world peace.

Khrushchov: I would like to express my most sincere
gratitude for your kind and friendly assessment of the So-
viet Union's policy, which is a policy of ensuring peace and
peaceful international co-operation in the interests of the
peoples. Soviet policy is based on high moral principles.
These principles have been substantiated by our great
teacher Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state. We have al-
ways been, and shall continue to be, loyal to the Leninist
principles of friendship and brotherhood among the peoples,
and we shall work tirelessly for world peace.

What, then, are the measures which should be taken now
to prevent war? The main thing now is for public opinion,
for the peoples in all countries, not to allow themselves to
be lulled by some manoeuvre or other on the part of the
colonialists, and for the peoples to condemn with still great-
er vigour the aggressive actions of certain Western states
against the countries of the Middle East. The peoples must
urgently press for the withdrawal of the troops of the in-
terventionists and must spare no effort in striving to put
an end for all time to the imperialist methods of settling
international problems. To put it briefly, it is necessary to
strive for relations between all states, whatever their inter-
nal regimes, to be based on the principles of Panch Shila.
Those are splendid words which contain the broad idea of
ensuring peace and friendship among nations. It is neces-
sary to assert the right of all peoples to live as they desire,
and to deliver mankind from the policy of strength, with
the help of which some persons in the West still intend to
impose their rule on other peoples. It is necessary to deliver
mankind from the methods of the last century, when the

628

imperialists decided the fate of peoples and divided and
redivided the world into spheres of influence for them-
selves. There is no going back to a past when a small hand-
ful of countries exploited the Asian and African peoples
and waxed fat at their expense.

In our day anyone who is not willing to take into ac-
count the aspirations of the peoples for peace and freedom,
anyone who still seeks to continue the policy of colonialism
and imperialism, in accordance with the "divide and rule"
principle— such a person will inevitably be cast aside by
history. We hope that common sense will finally triumph
over the adventurist political line of certain Western lead-
ers.

Anand: We have just come from the Stockholm Congress.
We were in Stockholm at a time when serious events oc-
curred in the Middle East. In addition to a large delegation
from India, the Congress was attended by delegations from
many Asian and African countries, Arab countries, by big
delegations from South America and other countries. In
the past, at such assemblies, there have been certain differ-
ences of opinion about the relation between the struggle
for national liberation and the struggle for peace. Some
leaders from Western countries, even among the peace sup-
porters, in the past argued that the struggle against colo-
nialism not infrequently interferes, and comes into conflict,
with the struggle for peace. This time we saw that now
there is a high degree of understanding within the peace
movement that lasting peace cannot be achieved while the
shameful colonial system remains. This has greatly encour-
aged us.

In this connection, allow me to ask you what, in your
opinion, could be done to achieve better mutual understand-
ing between the socialist countries and the countries which
have recently gained their national independence, so that
both the former and the latter may jointly lay a still firmer
foundation upon which the edifice of peace can be erected.

Khrushchov: You have rightly noted the distinctions

629

which still exist between the views of representatives of the
colonial or former colonial countries and some representa-
tives of the Western countries. This is not a chance phenom-
enon. It is a product of the historical conditions of the
past.

The struggle for liberation from colonial dependence is
a matter of life and death for the colonial peoples. But
those who are accustomed to being colonialists do not want
to understand that at all. Moreover, at times it is not under-
stood even by people who consider themselves progressive
and free thinking, and who condemn violence. They seem
to have become accustomed to a situation in which the im-
perialists of this or that Western state lord it over a number
of countries of Asia, Africa and South America by virtue
of being more "developed and highly civilized," as if des-
tined to fulfil a "noble mission," to "bring civilization and
culture" to the peoples of underdeveloped countries. Such
explanations are untenable. There are no arguments, nor
can there be, to justify the preservation and continuation
of the policy of colonialism.

It is sufficient to consider the example of India, which
was a colonial country for many years. Did India prior to
being subjugated by the colonialists have a low culture?
On the contrary, if we compare Indian culture with that of
the colonialists, we find that the high culture of India has
deeper roots which reach far back into the centuries. This
is borne out by the many monuments of India's ancient
culture, created by the talented and industrious people of
India.

The colonialists, however, did not take into account the
right of the people of India to order their lives in accord-
ance with their own interests. As a result of the domina-
tion of the foreign colonialists they were condemned to
bear the colonial yoke for a long time. India was oppressed
and ruthlessly plundered. For a long time the colonialists
retarded the development of the Indian economy and cul-
ture and condemned the people to poverty and starvation.

630

And today, when people boast that in Britain and in some
other Western countries the standard of living is higher
than in other countries, we must not forget at whose ex-
pense this has been achieved. It became possible at the ex-
pense of the millions of people who were sacrificed to attain
that high level. How many millions have died and are still
dying today in colonial countries so that colonialists may
be able to make huge fortunes out of the blood, poverty
and suffering of the peoples. It is not civilization and cul-
ture that the colonialists bring to the countries dependent
upon them, but oppression, violence, poverty, backwardness
and enslavement.

I have already said that even among democratic sections
of the public there are people infected with the bacillus of
colonialism. Take, for example, some Labourites in Britain.
They consider themselves Socialists and should, therefore,
be more progressive than Conservatives on questions of co-
lonial policy. But they include individuals who are indistin-
guishable from Conservatives on questions of colonial
policy.

And it was not by chance that during the attack on Egypt
in 1956, some Labourites did not oppose that aggres-
sion.

Or take the French Socialists. Was not the French Gov-
ernment, which at the time was headed by the Socialist
Guy Mollet, an accomplice in the aggressive attack on
Egypt, together with Britain and Israel?

It is not surprising, therefore, that even among those who
are taking part in the struggle for peace, there are still
people who are beset with doubts as to the possibility of
combining the peoples' struggle against colonialism with
the peoples' struggle for peace. They regard the existence
of colonialism as unjust, but when a situation arises that
threatens to deprive certain Powers of one colony or an-
other, they are assailed with doubts and vacillations. Some
of them find various justifications for the colonialists hav-
ing to obtain oil from dependent countries for a mere song.

631

In so doing they apparently fail to realize that this means
robbing the peoples of those countries.

The imperialists who extract oil and other wealth, prac-
tically for nothing, from the colonial and dependent coun-
tries, ignore the fact that owing to this, millions upon mil-
lions of people — children and adults — perish in those coun-
tries. This does not disturb them in the least. They say that
the Asian and African peoples have always lived in greater
poverty, and fared worse than the population in the West-
ern countries.

Can the peoples of Asia and Africa reconcile themselves
to such prospects? They are fighting, and will continue
to fight, for their independence, for the right to dispose of
their countries' wealth themselves. The peoples of Asia and
Africa are waging a determined struggle for the national
independence of their countries. The colonialists will not
be able to halt this struggle. It began despite the wishes of
the colonialists and it will reach a successful conclusion.

It is necessary, therefore, to differentiate here between
colonialists who want to rule over other peoples in order to
rob them and grow rich at their expense, and deluded peo-
ple who desire peace and regard colonialism as unjust, but
who do not know whether it is possible to combine the
struggle for peace with the struggle for the abolition of co-
lonialism.

As for relations between the socialist countries, on the
one hand, and the former colonial countries and the coloni-
al countries which are liberating themselves, on the other,
here there is complete clarity. It is necessary to strengthen in
every way the relations between these countries, both along
governmental lines and along social lines: to exchange
delegations, to render each other assistance in economic
and cultural matters and in the development of industry.

Economically highly developed countries should help
the underdeveloped countries to enable the peoples of those
countries to utilize the available possibilities for promot-
ing their economy, culture and science and for raising the

632

standard of living of the population. I think that relations
of just such a kind are developing at the present time. In
the future, too, they should develop in the same direction.
I believe that all socialist countries understand their role
precisely in the following way: to help one another, to help
the socialist countries, and at the same time also to help the
countries which are throwing off, or have already thrown
off, the colonial yoke; not to interfere in the internal affairs
of those countries, but to help them in their development,
in the consolidation of national independence and sover-
eignty. Accordingly, it is always necessary to be guided
by the well-known Five Principles which are now recog-
nized by many countries: mutual respect for territorial in-
tegrity and sovereignty, non-aggression, non-interference
in one another's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit,
peaceful co-existence and economic co-operation. Such a
development of relations provides the only correct way. It
will promote the strengthening of tne forces of progress,
the strengthening of friendly relations between countries
and, consequently, it will help to ensure lasting peace.

S. R. Tikekar: The Americans in the Lebanon and the
British in Jordan, having occupied those two countries,
now seem to be marking time there. Does this mean that
the forces of peace have succeeded in frustrating the fur-
ther plans of the British and Americans in the Middle East?
It must be assumed that they had far-reaching plans which
did not envisage only the occupation of those two countries.

Khrushchov: I think you are right in your assumptions.
The landing of troops there envisaged not only what had
already taken place, but also a subsequent attack on the
Republic of Iraq and its liquidation, the unleashing of war
in that area in order to destroy the United Arab Republic
and thereby create conditions for a return to the old colo-
nial system which formerly existed in those countries. Times
have changed, however. All this proved to be not so
easy to accomplish as the initiators of those plans had imag-
ined. The people of Iraq have successfully carried out a

revolution. Complete order has been established in the
Republic of Iraq. The people are supporting the new Gov-
ernment and the republican system that has been estab-
lished in the country. A wave of popular protest has swept
all countries, including those whose governments have
sent troops into the Middle East, especially Britain. The
aggressors are therefore compelled to camouflage their
predatory actions. But the danger has not as yet been
removed. The interventionists have so far been stopped—
they have now put a halt to their active operations in carry-
ing out the task they had set themselves. But the build-up
of forces is continuing. In these conditions the peaceful
countries must be exceptionally vigilant. All peoples must
raise their voices still louder and vigorously press for the
withdrawal of the troops of the United States and Britain
from the Lebanon and Jordan, and must put an end to
the intervention of the colonialists in the internal affairs
of the Arab countries.

It should be noted that the fact that nearly 1,000 mil-
lion people are now building their life in accordance with
socialist principles is of great importance in strengthening
peace, in the struggle for peace. This is a great force that
is restraining the aggressors and all who have not given
up attempts to unleash war.

Nor should it be forgotten that the peoples of the coun-
tries which have liberated themselves from the colonial
yoke are determined to defend the cause of peace, since
only in an atmosphere of peace can they ensure the
economic development of their countries, which have won
their national independence. Among them we have such
a great country as India, whose lofty moral principles are
known to the whole world and deserve great respect.

Needless to say, the Soviet Union is playing a great role
in the defence of peace. The very existence of such a peace-
ful and powerful state as our country has an exceptionally
beneficial significance for mankind and acts as a powerful
deterrent to aggressors. I would like to stress that the

634

existence of such a mighty state as the Soviet Union
instils in the hearts of all people, who are longing for
peace, the hope of preserving and strengthening world
peace.

Colonialists are people with rather low morals. In their
public statements they very often appeal to God, and at
the same time hold a concealed dagger which they are
ready to use against the weak in order to seize their
wealth— their oil or other assets. The colonialists are now
raving especially against the Soviet Union, trying to dis-
credit it in the eyes of the peoples. Why are they doing
this? Because they see that the Soviet Union has won great
respect among the peoples, since it bases its policy on
high moral principles.

The Soviet state and all the socialist countries desire
peace and not war, peaceful co-operation and not enmity.
All the more do they oppose the subjugation of one people
by another. The Soviet Union, the Chinese People's Repub-
lic and all socialist countries are resolutely opposed to
colonialism. The Soviet Union has the proper means avail-
able for dealing with colonialists if they do not come to
their senses. Colonialists should not be allowed to endan-
ger peace and subjugate small nations with impunity. The
voice of the Soviet Union in defence of colonial peoples
and its possibilities of exerting influence on the aggressors
are bringing the latter to their senses. Sometimes the co-
lonialists are compelled to sing and serenade in order to
lull the vigilance of the peoples and to make a verbal show
of their peaceful disposition.

The forces standing for peace are growing increasingly
stronger. The advocates of colonialism are losing more and
more strength, as they pursue aims that are unjust and
do not have, and cannot have, the support of the peoples.

Tikekar: Just a few words, by the way, about moral ac-
tions. The American actions in the Lebanon were entirely
immoral, because the Americans were not invited there by
any legal authority. The same is true with regard to the

635

British actions in Jordan. The treaty between Jordan and
Britain was abrogated, and nevertheless British troops
have now entered Jordan. Evidently these immoral actions
on the part of the British in Jordan are resulting in King
Hussein becoming less and less popular among the people
of Jordan. Could not this circumstance provide the grounds
for an uprising of the people of Jordan against the King
and the British?

Khrushchov: King Hussein has no influence at all among
the people. It was this that made the British send their forces
into Jordan to maintain him on the throne. The press has
even reported that Hussein has already consulted the British
and the Americans about whether he should abdicate. But
he was advised to remain, and he did. King Hussein holds
his throne, not because the people want him to be king,
but because the colonialists wish to have such a king, to
use him as a screen for ensuring their domination in
Jordan and, with the help of an "invitation" from the King,
to disguise the intervention of their forces in Jordan.

The people of Jordan will drive the British forces out
of their country all the same. As you know, the British
have already been there but they were forced to get out.
So the intervention of British forces in Jordan is not some-
thing new. They were driven out at one time and they
will be seen off now with the same "honours" from foreign
soil. What is new is that whereas in the past statesmen
of the U.S.A. did not openly admit their role as colonialists,
now they can no longer conceal it from the peoples. The
peoples now see more clearly that in essence there is no
difference at all between the imperialists of Britain and
the United States, because both of them use armed force
against the vital interests of all countries struggling for
their national independence against the colonialists.

Jagat Narayan: We would like to know what, in your
opinion, are the prospects for a summit conference, now
that American and British forces have gone into the Leba-
non and Jordan.

Khrushchov: The American leaders have done, and are
doing, their best to prevent the meeting. They still main-
tain the same attitude. But owing to great pressure from
the peoples and to the growing trend in favour of a summit
conference in the United States itself, U.S. statesmen do
not talk openly about their desire to prevent a summit
meeting. They disguise their efforts in that direction by
inventing various complicated procedural problems which
allegedly hinder such a meeting.

Narayan: What is the role of the British in this situa-
tion?

Khrushchov: It is about the same as that oi the United
States. However, the position of the British Government is
more difficult, because the Labour Party members in that
country are strong and are exerting great pressure on the
Government. That is why the British Government has to
pursue a more astute policy. Besides, British policy is in
general more subtle and flexible, because the British are
more skilful diplomats than the Americans and they do
not act as crudely as their American colleagues.

H. P. Desai: In view of the fact that the attitude of the
member-countries of the Baghdad Pact continues to be
aggressive, what are the prospects for peace in the light
of this?

Khrushchov: To a certain extent I have already answered
this question. The Baghdad Pact has now been left without
Baghdad. The fact is also not without significance.
(Laughter.)

Now too the prospects for maintaining peace are very
considerable. The countries which stand for peace should
make skilful use of their forces and should not give way
to the colonialists. Peace can be maintained if the peoples
display greater vigilance with regard to the intrigues of
the imperialists.

As for the British and the Americans, they will event-
ually withdraw their troops from Jordan and the Lebanon,
for the peoples of those countries will not rest until they

637

have achieved their aims, and the troops of the colonialists
will ignominiously depart.

M. G. Desai: Today we visited the Institute of Oriental
Studies. We were very pleased to learn that this institute
recently published a book devoted to our national uprising
of 1857, and then a book about Tilak, our great leader and
Gandhi's predecessor, and very soon it expects to publish
a book about Gandhi and his contribution to the national-
liberation movement of the Indian people. We have no
doubt that the thorough study of our national movement
will strengthen the ties between our two countries, as
certain imprudent remarks made by individual Soviet
authors in the past gave the enemies of Soviet-Indian
friendship an opportunity to exploit their statements to the
detriment of this friendship. Such misunderstandings are
now evidently out of the question with the scale which the
study of our national movement has acquired in the Soviet
Union.

Khrushchov: It is gratifying that you understand our
policy so well. Indeed, we are seeking in every possible
way to broaden and strengthen the friendship between our
countries. In the past some inaccurate views on several
Indian personalities did appear in certain works by Soviet
authors. We are trying to put this right so as to pay tribute
to everyone who played a truly great role in his country
and made a big contribution to the liberation of his native
India from the colonialists. We are filled with admiration
for their outstanding activities and their splendid records,
and we are doing everything possible to enable our people
to obtain an accurate picture of the forces which fought
for India's freedom and independence and rallied their
people in the fight against foreign colonialists. The Soviet
people show great interest in the history of India and want
to know more about this friendly, great and peaceful
country.

You know that it was not only about your leading person-
alities that our press published incorrect allegations. At

638

one time mistakes were made regarding a number of very
prominent personalities in the sphere of our own Soviet
culture, for instance, regarding such an eminent figure
in Soviet music as the composer Dmitry Shostakovich, or
regarding Alexander Korneichuk and Wanda Wasilewska.
Their names are widely known throughout the world, not
only as prominent representatives of Soviet culture, but
also as active fighters for the cause of peace— they take
part in the work of the World Peace Council.

You evidently know that not so long ago a special de-
cision was made here on this question, in which we
swept overboard everything that had been wrongly brought
up against these and other comrades, and in that way we
developed a correct attitude to the understanding of their
work and created for them, as for all our other artists,
even better opportunities for the more fruitful application
of their creative endeavours. Unfortunately, at one time the
mistakes to which you have referred were also made in
evaluating and characterizing certain Indian personalities.

Jain: Some time ago a Lebanese opposition leader said
that if American troops landed in the Lebanon, it would
lead to volunteers being sent to the Lebanon by the forces
which stand for peace.

Now that the landing of American troops has taken
place, but further military developments have been sus-
pended, what opinion is held on the question of volunteers?

Khrushchov: The participation of volunteers from other
countries in events in the Middle East would mean a real
war! It would be better if there was no such war, if in that
country there were neither volunteers nor soldiers sent in
on the orders of certain governments. I believe it would
be far better for the Lebanese to be in the Lebanon, for
the Jordanians to be in Jordan, and for the peoples of those
countries to live without uninvited outsiders.

Tikekar: Today we were told in the Institute of Oriental
Studies that on your initiative the study of Indian
languages is being expanded and that, in particular there

639

is talk of establishing an institute for the .study of Indian
languages. In this connection I would like to express the
following wish. It is, of course, worth while developing
the study of contemporary Indian languages, but it is
worth while developing the study of Sanskrit as well. I
would like to express the hope that in the immediate future
there will appear a new edition of the very good Sanskrit
dictionary which, in the past, was published in St. Peters-
burg.

Khrushchov: In the Soviet Union there is very great
interest in studying the languages of the peoples of the
East, including the peoples of India. We want more people
in our country to know these languages so as to make it
easier to develop cultural relations between our countries.
I would prefer, however, to refrain from making any
sweeping statement on this question and would like to give
the specialists in this field an opportunity to make a de-
tailed study of these matters so as to take the necessary
steps afterwards.

O. Paliwal: In concluding our interview, I would like to
say that there can be no doubt that among the forces
standing for peace a great role is being played by the
Soviet Union and by the Soviet Union's strength. A big
part is also being played by the countries of Asia and
Africa which have achieved their independence or are now
striving for their independence. We feel that the movement
of the former colonial peoples can be a great factor in the
struggle against foreign exploitation and aggression, in
the struggle for peace. We would like to express the hope
that these two factors — the Soviet Union and the com-
munity of Asian and African countries which took shape
at Bandung and was further developed at the Cairo Con-
ference— will jointly play a great role in the fight for peace.

Khrushchov: I agree with you and can assure you that
the Soviet Union is a state which is strong enough to make
a worthy stand for the cause of peace, and that is a for-
tunate thing for all the peoples who wish to preserve

640

peace throughout the world. Why is that so? It is so be-
cause the national economy of our country, our strength—
both moral and material strength in the shape of our
army— will never be used to the detriment of any neighbour
state or to the detriment of any nation whatsoever. The
Armed Forces of the Soviet Union have been created and
exist for the purpose of worthily defending the freedom and
independence of our people, our country, for the purpose
of maintaining peace throughout the world.

We are sure that in further pursuing our peace policy
we shall be able to achieve even greater results in strength-
ening peace throughout the world and maintain such
conditions that aggressors will not dare to unleash war.
But if, in defiance of common sense, they venture to unleash
a new war, that war will be fatal for them. We have said,
however, and we reiterate, that it is better not to have any
war; it is better to nip in the bud any attempt to start
a war. We have done and are doing our best towards this
end, and for the sake of this we are ready for complete
disarmament. You are probably aware of the concrete steps
we have taken towards this end. Recently, for instance, we
forwarded to the Governments of European states and to
the United States Government a proposal for the conclu-
sion of a treaty of friendship and co-operation among
European states. The Soviet Government does not spare
its efforts for the strengthening of peace throughout the
world.

It is very gratifying to see that you understand our
policy and assess it correctly. I should like to express my
thankfulness and appreciation for this.

Narayan: Could you express any wish to the people of
India so that we might convey it to them?

Anand (adds): During your visit to India you succeeded
in winning the hearts of the people of our country and a
new message from you at the present time would be very
favourably received.

Khrushchov: As for my wishes for the Indian people,

641

they have always been, and they remain, most sincere and
open-hearted. First of all I heartily wish that the people
of India may enjoy all the fruits of the independence India
has won in her struggle against the colonialists. It is our
wish that India may develop her economy, because inde-
pendence can only be retained when the national economy
is developed to a high level, making it possible to provide
abundantly for the needs of the people.

If we do not achieve a solution to the problem of uni-
versal disarmament, a country must possess the means to
defend its freedom and independence.

If colonialists were to attempt to re-establish their co-
lonial domination in your country, you would not tolerate
that, would you? In order to retain the national independ-
ence which many countries have now achieved, after having
driven out the colonialists, they should develop their na-
tional economy in every possible way.

What the peoples need is material well-being, the
opportunity to satisfy their spiritual requirements and to
develop education — primary, secondary and higher educa-
tion— so that people can bring out and develop their talents
and use them in the interests of the economic and cultural
development of their country and their people, so that the
people of every country can be prosperous and can enjoy
all the fruits of their labour.

It is our wish that friendly relations may develop be-
tween all nations and states, that good relations may
develop still further between the Republic of India and the
Soviet Union in the direction in which they are developing
now, when such good relations exist between our
governments and the peoples of our countries. I whole-
heartedly wish the Republic of India happiness and pros-
perity.

We greatly appreciate the peace policy that is being
pursued by the Indian Government and the peoples of
India. We note in particular the distinguished role of your
Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in this connection. We

642

sincerely wish that India may continue steadily to pursue
her peace policy in the struggle for world peace. We heart-
ily wish the Indian people success and your Prime
Minister, Mr. Nehru, good health.

M. G. Desai: At present when the international situation
is in a state of crisis, it is an exceedingly great honour
for us that you have been able to spare an hour and a half
of your precious time for this talk with us.

Khrushchov: I deeply respect the representatives of India,
the representatives of the Indian press, and I think that
correct understanding of our policy by Indian public
opinion depends to a great extent on a true presentation
of that policy in the Indian press. And if ever wider sec-
tions of the Indian public understand the policy of the
Soviet Union correctly, that will contribute to an even
greater strengthening of friendly relations between our
countries. That is why I not only do not regret the time
spent on our talk, but I am glad to have had the opportu-
nity to answer your questions. And if my answers have
satisfied you and can promote and further consolidate
friendly relations between our states, I shall be very
pleased and satisfied.

I wish you every success in your work. Good-bye.

Pravda, August 5, 1958

REPLIES

TO QUESTIONS OF PRAVDA CORRESPONDENT

ON ENDING OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS TESTS

Question: How do you regard the position of the Gov-
ernments of the U.S.A. and Great Britain on the suspension
of nuclear weapons tests in the light of statements by
President Eisenhower and the British Government, made
public on August 22?

Answer: Unfortunately, these statements do not show
that the Governments of the U.S.A. and Great Britain are
prepared to follow the Soviet Union's example and halt
nuclear weapons tests immediately. They are in effect pro-
ceeding with their old policy of evading— under various
pretexts— a commitment to halt at once the tests of nuclear
weapons. They have been doing so for several years now,
beginning with May 1955, when the Soviet Government
proposed an agreement on immediate suspension of tests
of atomic and hydrogen weapons.

The Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., sharing the wishes
of the peoples to put an end to test explosions and guided
by the desire to make a practical move towards universal
suspension of nuclear tests, decided on March 31, this year,
to cease unilaterally tests of all types of atomic and
hydrogen weapons in the Soviet Union. We took this step
for the sake of achieving general agreement on the universal
suspension of nuclear tests, even though we realized that it
could place the Soviet Union in an unfavourable position as
compared with the NATO countries. Having stopped its
nuclear tests, the Soviet Union called upon the U.S.A.

644

and Great Britain to follow its example so that atom and
hydrogen bomb tests could be ended everywhere and for
all time.

However, the Governments of the U.S.A. and Great
Britain refused to follow the Soviet Union's example. They
continued, and are still continuing, to hold tests, showing
thereby their real attitude to the cessation of tests of
atomic and hydrogen weapons.

Can it be said that the statements by the Governments
of the U.S.A. and Great Britain of August 22 show any
change in their position on this matter? No. If the Gov-
ernments of the U.S.A. and Britain really wanted atomic
and hydrogen tests to be ended completely, they should
have discontinued them immediately. The statements by
the Governments of the U.S.A. and Great Britain, however,
show that these governments are still looking for loop-
holes to evade the immediate suspension of nuclear tests.
The reservations and the obviously contrived conditions
with which the Governments of the Western Powers are
hedging their proposals make this especially clear.

Indeed, what do the Governments of the U.S.A. and
Great Britain propose?

To begin with, instead of announcing the immediate
discontinuation of tests, the Governments of the U.S.A. and
Great Britain speak of a temporary suspension of nuclear
tests for one year. It is obvious, however, that the sus-
pension of tests for so short a period is of no importance
whatsoever, for a year is precisely the period necessary
for preparing another series of nuclear tests.

Does this speak of a serious approach to the subject or
of a sincere desire of the Governments of the Western
Powers to end the tests of atomic and hydrogen weapons?
By no means. It looks more like mockery of the aspirations
of the peoples, who demand that test explosions be ended
at once and for all.

True, the Governments of the U.S.A. and Great Britain
say that they will be prepared to extend the period of

645

suspending tests by one year at a time, but they hedge
this agreement with such reservations and conditions that
it becomes clear that they have no real intention of dis-
continuing further tests of nuclear weapons.

One of the conditions they put forward is the establish-
ment of an effective system of control over the cessation
of tests. This "condition" is of course artificial, for it has
long been known that present-day science guarantees
detection of any nuclear explosions and, consequently, the
control of an agreement to stop tests is easily realized.
If any proof of the utterly artificial nature of this condition
were needed, it would be enough to recall the results of
the recent Geneva meeting of experts of eight countries.

The Governments of the U.S.A.. and Great Britain state
further that they will be prepared to prolong the one-year
agreement on the suspension of nuclear tests only if "sat-
isfactory progress" is made in the solution of the general
problem of disarmament. Who does not know, however, that
it is the Western governments, and they alone, that are
thwarting agreement on disarmament, year after year, by
clinging to the policy of armaments race and atomic
blackmail? The question arises: With things as they are,
how can one believe that they really want a cessation of
tests, if they put forward such a condition? Is there any
surer way of sabotaging the halting of nuclear tests than
making such conditions?

Some people in the West are ready to go into raptures
about the statements by the Governments of the U.S.A. and
Great Britain concerning a possible suspension of nuclear
tests by them, and lavishly praise these statements as a
peaceful act. It should be frankly said that those who
want the tests to be really ended cannot wax enthusiastic
over these statements.

A curious situation arises. First we were told for a long
time that the question of the discontinuation of nuclear
tests could be settled only as an integral part of a broad
disarmament agreement. When the incongruity of the

646

Western position became clear to all, the Western Powers,
under public pressure, retreated from that position, stating
that they were prepared to consider the cessation of tests
independently, as a separate problem. At the same time,
however, they began to play up the question of control
over the ending of tests, grossly exaggerating the difficul-
ties of such control—contrary to the facts— and even alleg-
ing control to be impossible. Now, when it has become
clear to all that control is quite feasible, Washington and
London are again saying that the solution of the question
of the cessation of tests is possible only concomitantly with
the solution of other disarmament problems.

Thus, the opponents of the universal halting of nuclear
tests have come full circle — a vicious circle.

After all this, how can one put any faith in the profes-
sions of the Governments of the U.S.A. and Great Britain
to the effect that they desire a cessation of tests? Would
it not be more correct to suppose that this is still another
attempt to lull the vigilance of the peoples who manifest
legitimate concern over the continuing nuclear tests car-
ried out by the U.S.A. and Great Britain on an increas-
ingly larger scale?

Question: What importance do the results of the recent
Geneva meeting of experts of eight countries concerning
the methods of detecting nuclear explosions have, in your
opinion, for the solution of the question of the universal
halting of tests of atomic and hydrogen weapons?

Answer: The significance of the Geneva conference of
experts lies first of all in that it finally buried the legend
concerning the alleged impossibility of control over the
observance of an agreement to end nuclear tests. This leg-
end, as is known, was circulated by certain circles of the
Western Powers, particularly the United States, in order
to prevent the ending of tests. The experts who met in
Geneva, including those of the Western Powers, have
reached the unanimous conclusion that any nuclear explo-
sion can be detected and that effective control over the

647

ending of nuclear tests is quite practicable. We note with
satisfaction that the findings of the conference of experts
fully confirm the correctness of the Soviet Government's
viewpoint, which it has continually maintained, and show
up the falseness of the position of the Western Powers. The
results of the Geneva conference compel those who oppose
the universal ending of tests to acknowledge the complete-
ly untenable and unscientific nature of their arguments.

The Soviet Government has carefully examined the re-
sults of the work of the Geneva meeting of experts and
considers it necessary to state that it agrees with all the
conclusions and recommendations regarding the system
of control over the universal ending of nuclear tests which
are contained in the report of the conference.

In the light of the results of this conference, there can
now be no excuse or justification for the refusal to desist
at once from experiments with nuclear weapons every-
where, even on the part of those who previously used such
excuses to dupe the credulous.

Question: The Soviet public is alarmed by the fact that
the Governments of the United States and Great Britain
not only failed to follow the example of the Soviet Union,
which has unilaterally halted all nuclear tests, but, on the
contrary, began to conduct such tests even more inten-
sively. What can be said regarding the position of the
Soviet Government in connection with such actions of the
Western Powers?

Answer: Yes, the Governments of the United States and
Great Britain actually did refuse to follow the example of
the Soviet Union and are continuing to conduct more in-
tensively test explosions of atom and hydrogen bombs.
Even after the unilateral halting of tests by the Soviet Union
and after the Soviet Government's proposal to the Govern-
ments of the United States and Great Britain to discon-
tinue all tests immediately and everywhere, the United
States undertook its biggest series of tests, in the Pacific.
Between April 28 and July 26 alone, it carried out over 30

648

nuclear explosions. The British Government also con-
ducted several nuclear tests. Moreover, on the v^ry
day of August 22, when the Government of Great Britain
announced to all the world its readiness to start negotia-
tions to end nuclear tests, it proceeded with a fresh series
of explosions of nuclear weapons. The Governments of the
United States and Great Britain are clearly using the ces-
sation of nuclear tests by the Soviet Union in order to gain
unilateral military advantages for themselves.

The Soviet Government, which has done everything
possible on its part to assure a positive solution of the
problem of the ending of nuclear tests everywhere, natu-
rally cannot allow the security interests of the Soviet Union
to be jeopardized by such actions of the Western Powers.
In this respect we are guided by the well-known decision
of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. of March 31, this
year, which stated that if other Powers possessing atomic
and hydrogen weapons continued tests of these weapons,
the Government of the U.S.S.R. would be free to act as it
saw fit with regard to the question of the Soviet Union
conducting tests of atomic and hydrogen weapons, in or-
der to ensure the security of the country. We, the leaders
of the Soviet state, would cut fine figures if, in the face of
such actions of the Western Powers, we were to ignore the
vital and legitimate security interests of our country.

The actions of the United States and Great Britain, ac-
tions which run counter to the will of the peoples, relieve
the Soviet Union of the obligation it had assumed unilat-
erally, counting as it did on the good will of the Western
Powers with regard to the question of the immediate and
universal ending of nuclear tests.

Question: What is the Soviet Government's attitude
towards the proposal of the Governments of the United
States and Great Britain to initiate three-Power negotia-
tions on October 31 on the ending of nuclear tests?

Answer: The Soviet Union has repeatedly suggested to
the United States and Great Britain that negotiations be

649

held on the immediate ending of tests of nuclear weapons
by all Powers possessing such weapons. Now the Govern-
ments of these Powers have announced their readiness to
start negotiations on October 31, this year. This date is
acceptable to the Soviet Government. We consider that
the most suitable place for the negotiations would be Ge-
neva, where the experts who worked out the technical
methods of control over the observance of an agreement
to end nuclear tests have recently successfully completed
their work. However, our idea is that the purpose of such
talks must be to conclude an agreement to end tests of
atomic and hydrogen weapons of all kinds and by all states
once and for all. Only under such circumstances will the
talks conform to the interests of the peoples and avoid be-
ing used as a screen to cover reluctance to seek agreement.

We can by no means agree with those reservations and
conditions with which the Western Powers hedge their
statement concerning their readiness to participate in ne-
gotiations, since agreement with them would mean fore-
dooming the negotiations to failure. We also believe that
in order to avoid any delay it would be useful to agree be-
forehand on the duration of these negotiations. In view of
the positive results of the Geneva conference of experts, it
is our opinion that these negotiations could be brought to
a conclusion within two or three weeks.

But it would of course be wrong if the preparations for
such negotiations resulted in less attention being paid to
the importance of an urgent solution of the task of ending
nuclear tests by all states. In particular, it would be a
great error if less attention were paid to this question on
the part of the United Nations, including the forthcoming
13th Session of the General Assembly, which, in our
opinion, must say an authoritative word on this question
which so deeply concerns all mankind.

Pravda, August 30, 1958

REPLIES

TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY A. E. J OH ANN,

WEST GERMAN WRITER AND JOURNALIST

September 20, 1958

During his recent visit to the U.S.S.R., Herr Johann sub-
mitted a series of questions to N. S. Khrushchov.

Khrushchov's replies are published below.

Question: Everywhere in the Soviet Union both ordinary
Soviet citizens and prominent people assured me that they
sincerely desired peaceful co-operation and even friendship
not only with the German Democratic Republic, but also
with the Federal Republic of Germany. Is this just the
personal desire of individual Soviet citizens or is it also the
political aim of the Soviet Government?

Answer: The warm wishes voiced by the Soviet people
for peaceful co-operation and friendship between the So-
viet Union and the two German states reflect the policy
of the Soviet Government. There is the widespread belief
in the Soviet Union that co-operation and friendship be-
tween the peoples of our country and the entire German
people constitute the shortest road to strengthening peace
in Europe.

While strengthening its fraternal friendship with the
German Democratic Republic, the Soviet Union builds its
relations with the Federal Republic of Germany on a basis
of peaceful co-operation and strives to infuse a spirit of
mutual confidence and friendship into these relations. In
our opinion, this accords with the interests of both the
Soviet Union and the Federal Republic of Germany.
We would also like to see less attention paid in West

651

Germany to those who still try to raise doubts among
the public in Federal Germany about the usefulness
of further efforts to develop Soviet-West German rela-
tions.

We do not intend to force our opinion on anyone, but we
do consider it unpardonable that West Germany is delib-
erately neglecting the existing possibilities for rapproche-
ment between the Soviet Union and the Federal Republic
of Germany. We have time and again told those who have
a sober understanding of the importance of good relations
between the U.S.S.R. and the Federal Republic of Germany
that they would always find due support in Moscow and
that we shall welcome any proposal aimed at improving
relations between our two countries.

Question: During my tour of the Soviet Union I was of-
ten assured that as far as the Russian side was concerned
peaceful co-existence with the Federal Republic was quite
possible in spite of the latter's different political views. Can
the population of the Federal Republic be sure that in the
event of peaceful co-operation between the two nations the
Soviet Union would not attempt to influence the political
development of the Federal Republic in line with its own
political principles?

Answer: We not only accept peaceful co-existence, but
strive to build our relations with your country along the
principles of peaceful co-existence. It is just these princi-
ples that require the recognition of the fact that the social
and state system is the internal affair of a state, of the
people inhabiting it, and that they alone are entitled to
determine the political structure of the country. In its re-
lations with the Federal Republic the Soviet Union has
always unswervingly abided by the principles of peaceful
co-existence, which rule out interference in other nations'
domestic affairs, and will continue to do so.

Can it be said that the Federal Government is also build-
ing its policy along the principles of peaceful co-existence?
Unfortunately, not.

652

It is well known that the Federal Government never
misses an opportunity to reiterate its loyalty to the "Atlantic
Community." But no one has ever heard it speak in favour
of the policy of peaceful co-existence of states with differing
social systems. Yet that is not all. As a resident of West
Germany you should know better than anyone living out-
side your country that in its practical activity the Federal
Government has repeatedly shown blind hostility towards
the socialist countries. Can one ignore the fact, for instance,
that the statements of highly placed West German leaders
are full of gross, inadmissible attacks against the Soviet
Union. It looks very much as if these people have set them-
selves the task of fomenting animosity in the Federal
Republic towards the Soviet people and of hampering in
every possible way the development of relations between
the two states.

No less significant, too, is the fact that for several years
the Federal Government has been stubbornly refusing to
establish normal relations with the East European coun-
tries. And it does not appear to care in the least that in its
animosity towards countries with a different social system
it has gone much farther than such of its NATO partners
as the United States, Britain and France, who have long
since established diplomatic relations with these countries.

In the light of these facts it is not at all surprising that
the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany seeks
to establish contact and achieve understanding with gov-
ernments which on their part also intend to follow an anti-
communist policy.

It is not difficult to see what is behind the recent meet-
ing between Chancellor Adenauer and French Premier de
Gaulle, which took place in days anxious for France, at a
time when she is going through an acute political crisis.

It is well known that France is now the scene of a bitter
struggle between the supporters of the republican system,
who are defending the democratic rights and interests of

653

the people, and the extremist imperialist groups, who are
trying to push the country on to the path of fascism. Just
where the French reactionaries are dragging the country
is evident from the fact that they are making heroes out
of such fascist-type leaders as Soustelle, one of the or-
ganizers of the military putsch in Algeria. Chancellor
Adenauer is naturally also well informed about the situa-
tion in France. Since the Federal Government thought fit
to announce the establishment of close co-operation with
the French Government at a time when France is deciding
whether or not to remain a republic, this can pursue just
one aim — to encourage and spur on the forces of French
reaction to an anti-democratic coup. And this can scarcely
be a surprise to anyone, because for years now the Federal
Republic itself has been following a policy of suppressing
the democratic forces and curtailing civil liberties.

As far as one can judge from the communique and press
reports, Chancellor Adenauer and Premier de Gaulle were
concerned at their first meeting not only with co-ordinating
their actions at home, but also with the ways and means
of drawing the countries of Eastern Europe into the so-
called European Community, which is nothing but an affil-
iation of the aggressive North Atlantic bloc.

The press of certain countries spoke on this score of the
possible establishment of a sort of "BonnjParis axis." The
question arises: on what basis is it planned to set up this
axis? Even from the brief and deliberately vague com-
munique on the Adenauer-de Gaulle meeting and from
the explanatory statements of the Federal and French
Foreign Ministers, one can see that it is a policy of hostility
towards the socialist countries in Eastern Europe, of
attempts at interfering in their domestic affairs which will
serve as the basis of co-operation of the French and West
German governments.

One cannot help recalling other meetings of the Heads
of Government of certain West European countries, which

654

took place before the war, for the recent Adenauer-de
Gaulle meeting definitely resembles them. We remember
the meeting between Hitler and Mussolini in 1934, which
led to a deal between the two dictators against the demo-
cratic freedoms of the European nations, against the in-
terests of peace. The establishment of the Rome-Berlin axis,
which followed this meeting, brought Europe to the brink
of the Second World War.

Those who again want to raise the tattered banner of
struggle against communism would do well to remember
the fiasco suffered in the recent past by all kinds of anti-
communist "axes" and "triangles." It is all the more ad-
visable to bear this in mind, since the correlation of forces
in the international arena has changed radically since the
pre-war years in favour of the forces of peace and prog-
ress. Under the circumstances, it is clear that any govern-
ment which allows itself to be blinded by its hatred of the
peoples who are building a new society would take an ex-
tremely dangerous path, at the end of which it is doomed
to inevitable catastrophe. And no axes and blocs would
help it.

Question: Is the Soviet Union prepared to open the Rus-
sian market to the industry and trade of the Federal Re-
public widely enough for long-term participation in the
economic development of the Soviet Union?

Answer: The Soviet Union favours broad, all-round de-
velopment of economic and, especially, commercial ties
with all nations. We want to establish stable, mutually ben-
eficial and lasting relations with our trading partners.
It is precisely this type of relations that best suits the So-
viet economy, which is developing successfully according
to plan, without recessions and crises. The Soviet Union
has long-term trade agreements with many European
countries, including France, Italy, Finland, Austria and
others countries.

Recently we signed a Long-Term Agreement on Commod-
ity Exchange and Payments and an Agreement on Gener-

655

al Questions of Trade and Navigation with the Federal
Republic of Germany. These agreements create a more
solid basis for economic relations between our two coun-
tries than existed before. They provide for a considerable
increase in the volume of trade between the two states —
more than twofold within the next thtee years. But these
agreements, in our opinion, do not by far exhaust the eco-
nomic possibilities available for an expansion of Soviet-
West German trade. Being economically highly developed
countries, the Soviet Union and West Germany could trade
on a much broader scale.

As you know, the Soviet Union has launched a large-
scale programme of increasing the output of consumer
goods, and that includes a considerable increase in the
production of synthetic materials, fibres, plastics, artificial
leather, furs, and articles made of them. To speed up this
programme, the Soviet Union could make large purchases
of appropriate equipment in the Federal Republic of Ger-
many. We would expect its industry to offer us equipment
that accords with the present level of technology, and at
reasonable prices. The Federal Republic could also take
part in the development of this branch of Soviet industry
by sending its experts to work as advisers in Soviet enter-
prises, by selling licences, and in other appropriate ways.
Trade between the U.S.S.R. and West Germany could also
be expanded beyond the volume provided for in the agree-
ments in other branches of industry. The Soviet Union is
prepared to pay for its purchases with Soviet goods of in-
terest to the Federal Republic.

Question: Wherever he goes in the Soviet Union, an ob-
servant traveller encounters astonishing plans of economic
and cultural development. He is everywhere assured that
these tasks can be fulfilled only if peace is maintained on
earth. It appears to me that the Soviet Government through
this peace propaganda has undertaken before its citizens
to do everything humanly possible to preserve peace. Is
that right?

656

Answer: The Soviet Union can fulfil its far-reaching
plans of national economic development within the terms
set only if there is peace in the world. You will agree with
me, I think, that past wars also caused tremendous dam-
age to the economy, ruined it, and thereby subjected the
people to great hardships and calamities. Who can deny
that any new war unleashed by the aggressive forces, in-
volving as it would modern weapons of mass annihilation
and destruction, would cause an incalculable sacrifice of
human lives and tremendous, unprecedented economic
disruption, the destruction of towns, industrial and agricul-
tural centres, and of huge material values created by the
efforts of many generations.

As regards the consequences suffered by the Soviet
economy in the last war, it may be recalled that Nazi Ger-
many's treacherous attack on the Soviet Union caused our
national economy a loss of 2,569,000 million rubles, count-
ing military expenditures and the temporary loss of the in-
dustrial and agricultural profits in the occupied areas. If
this colossal sum had been used for the nation's economic
needs, the tasks we now have to solve would unquestion-
ably have been solved long ago. It should not be forgotten
that of the forty years that the Soviet state exists, almost
twenty were taken up by wars that were forced upon us
and the subsequent rehabilitation of the national economy.

The Soviet Government's desire to preserve peace is,
naturally, not motivated by propaganda. Peace is a vital
necessity for the Soviet state. If you care to call that prop-
aganda, you may; we shan't object. It is a kind of prop-
aganda one can be proud of. We would welcome the same
propaganda from the Governments of the Western Powers.

Question: Would the Soviet Union be prepared to believe
in the Federal Republic's sincere desire for peace, would it
co-operate with the Federal Republic in the future as with
a friendly nation and, in particular, would it assist in
Germany's reunification, if the Federal Republic carried
out the following conditions: a) not to arm the Bundes-

657

wehr with atomic weapons; b) to limit the numerical
strength and armaments of the Bundeswehr to a size which
would eliminate all doubts about its purely defensive pur-
poses?

Answer: I would like to think that you put the matter in
this way because you are concerned about the destinies of
the German people. As I understand it, you want to stress
the hopeful opportunities that would open to West Ger-
many, if she were to carry out the conditions you have out-
lined. Your question is frank, and I shall try to answer it
just as frankly.

There can be no doubt that if the Bundeswehr were not
being armed with atomic weapons and its strength and
armaments were limited to a size required by defence, this
would be a peace action of considerable significance and
would contribute to close co-operation between our coun-
tries on a basis of trust and friendship. The Soviet Union
would naturally be prepared, as before, to do everything
in its power to dissipate whatever doubts there may be
about the security of West Germany. In so doing, we could
examine not only the proposals already made, but think
about new ones.

A halt to the equipment of the Bundeswehr with atomic
arms and the limiting of its strength and armaments to
the size required by defence would, at the same time, have
a beneficial effect on the situation in Europe, would turn
its course towards eliminating the existing tension in that
area, and creating an atmosphere of trust among the
European states. It would unquestionably serve as a pow-
erful stimulus to German reunification and would bring
it out of the stalemate caused by the policy of militarizing
West Germany and her participation in the aggressive
blocs of the Western Powers, whose aims, we are deeply
convinced, have nothing in common with the national
interests of the German people.

By switching resolutely from war preparations to a
policy of consolidating peace in Europe, the Federal Gov-

658

ernment would contribute decisively to an agreement be-
tween the two German states on practical steps towards the
national reunification of the German people. As for the
Soviet Union, it will naturally do everything it can to help
achieve this goal.

Question: The Federal Republic would like to live in
peace and friendship not only with the Soviet Union, but
with the whole world and especially with the United States.
Would the Soviet Union regard the continued good rela-
tions of the Federal Republic and the United States as an
obstacle to better Soviet-West German understanding?

Answer: If the Federal Republic of Germany, as you say,
wants to live in peace and friendship not only with the
Soviet Union, but with the whole world and especially
with the United States, we can only welcome this wish, for
the Soviet Union also wants to live in peace and friend-
ship not only with the Federal Republic of Germany, but
with all countries, big and small, the United States includ-
ed. In stressing the necessity and benefit of good relations
between our countries, we proceed from the fact that such
relations cannot and should not be developed to the detri-
ment of the relations of the Soviet Union and the Federal
Republic with other states. Good, friendly relations be-
tween the U.S.S.R. and the Federal Republic of Germany
can only further their international ties in the interests of
peace. This is why there is no reason to fear that the So-
viet Union will make any demands on the Federal Republic
or urge it to spoil its relations with other states.

We assume for our part that the Federal Republic will
not nurture the hope of a deterioration of relations between
the Soviet Union and states that are friendly to it. We
address this wish first and foremost to those who hope to
get the Soviet Union to exert pressure on the German Dem-
ocratic Government in the interests of the ruling circles
in the Federal Republic. I stress once again that we make
no secret of our interest in good relations with the Federal
Republic and openly declare that it depends on these rela-
ys

tions which way Europe goes: towards a stronger peace or
towards military upheavals and the attendant grievous
consequences.

Question: Is the Soviet Government prepared to invite,
say, 12 well-known West German publicists and journa-
lists, assign each of them a good interpreter and give them
a chance to tour Russia on their own, as I have done on
my own responsibility, so that they form their own opinion
about the conditions existing in Russia, acquaint them-
selves with the true sentiments of the Russian people and
inform the West German public about it?

Answer: As you have seen, our doors are open to all
foreign journalists who sincerely desire to acquaint them-
selves with the economic and cultural achievements of the
Soviet Union and the life and work of the Soviet people,
and who report objectively to the public of their countries
on the Soviet Union.

Since the establishment of diplomatic relations our
country has been visited by many representatives of vari-
ous sections of the West German public. There have been
about 200 journalists among them. In the same period,
Federal Germany has been visited by about 30 Soviet jour-
nalists. In my opinion, the exchange of journalists should
be continued, with the aim in view that it should help
promote mutual understanding between the U.S.S.R. and
Federal Germany. We have some experience in exchanging
groups of journalists with other countries. I think that
your suggestion could be examined and put into practice
on a reciprocal basis.

N. KHRUSHCHOV

September 20, 1958
Pravda, September 24, 1958

REPLIES

TO QUESTIONS PUT BY PRAVDA EDITORIAL BOARD

CONCERNING EVENTS IN FRANCE

The editors of Pravda have received many letters in-
quiring about the substance of the developments in France.
In the last few days many also ask how to assess the de
Gaulle-Adenauer meeting. The editorial board of Pravda
requested N. S. Khrushchov to state his opinion on these
matters.

N. S. Khrushchov's replies are given below.

The events in France cannot but interest the Soviet
people. History shows that the destiny of this Western
Power is most closely related to the destiny of Europe as
a whole. Now that twenty years have passed since the dis-
graceful Munich deal with Hitler, which opened the door
to the Second World War, the manoeuvres of the French
reactionaries, who are traversing the old road, are attract-
ing the close attention of all those who value peace. It is
natural therefore that the Soviet people, adhering fully to
its principled stand of strict non-interference in the inter-
nal affairs of other countries, is following most closely the
developments in France which most directly bear on prob-
lems of European security.

Pravda readers are perfectly right in expressing concern
in their letters over the developments in France since the
fascist rebellion in Algeria last May.

Three or four months ago some people in Europe could
still entertain the hope that the new Government, headed

661

by General de Gaulle, would wish to, and be able to, curb
the fascist rebels, put an end to the unjust colonial war
against the Algerian people, and preserve the republic in
France. True, already then the progressive forces were
warning that all these were just empty and harmful illu-
sions, and that a most direct connection existed between the
events in Algeria and the rise to power of the new Govern-
ment in Paris.

Soon life itself ruthlessly shattered such illusions. Al-
ready on July 14, the day of the French national holiday,
the rebel generals and colonels were showered with decora-
tions and promotions. Paratroopers, rushed by air from
Algeria to participate in a military parade, marched in
triumph through Paris as through a conquered city. On
viewing this, many of those who had sincerely entertained
illusions began to see the truth. The lie about the new
Government's imaginary mission of salvation became
even more apparent when a feverish race began to prepare
the new constitution, which invests the head of the state
with sweeping dictatorial powers.

Now, on the threshold of the referendum of the new
draft constitution, redoubled efforts are being made to
give a veneer of legality to the change of regime which is
being prepared in France. This is being done in order to
facilitate the realization of the extremely far-reaching
plans of those who gave the signal for the mutiny in
Algeria on May 13.

The events in France cannot be viewed in isolation from
the general situation in Western Europe. All through the
post-war period the forces of imperialist reaction, which
suffered a fiasco as a result of the Second World War when
German and Italian fascism was smashed, have persist-
ently sought to strengthen their shaken positions. During
these thirteen years repeated attempts have been made to
restore fascism in a new form, under a new guise.

Now in one, now in another West European country the
ruling circles have gone over from parliamentary tactics

662

of compromise to those of open dictatorship and the crude
suppression of democratic forces. Everywhere these at-
tempts encountered determined resistance by the people,
who had grown wiser through their experience of struggle
against Nazi fascism. In some places, however, the reac-
tionary forces have won temporary success, as in West
Germany where the militarists have been able to have
the activities of progressive organizations banned. Now
the same strategic line of the reactionaries is taking shape
in France.

The plans for establishing a personal dictatorship under-
lying the new constitution; the reduction to naught of the
role of Parliament; the regime of brutal police repression
and, in some places, for instance, in Algeria, a regime of
terror modelled on Hitler's methods; the appointment of
the military to commanding positions in the state; the
gradual repeal of even those liberties which are granted
under bourgeois democracy; the threat to deprive the work-
ing class of its social gains and the encroachment on its
democratic organizations; all this involuntarily brings
back to memory the events of 1933 in Germany. This is
why today we have every reason to speak of the danger
of fascism looming over France.

It is no accident that French monopoly capital has now
put in the forefront of the country's political life thugs
who are twins of those who were active in Germany in
1932-33. Soustelle, a former spy, General Massu, the butch-
er of Algeria, de Serigny, Hitler's collaborator in the
Vichy Government, Georges Bonnet, former Foreign Minis-
ter in the Government of the traitor Petain, and their like
—these are the people who now call the tune in French
ruling circles by advocating the new constitution which
establishes a regime of personal dictatorship.

Nor is it an accident that the threat of fascism began to
spread to France from Algeria where the French colonial-
ists are trying to strangle the national-liberation move-
ment of the Algerian people. One of the founders of the

663

French Socialist Party, Jules Guesde, wrote: "Colonial
wars have always been a school for civil war. Butchers of
the Cavaignac type were trained in Algeria in wars against
the Arabs and the Kabyles." Guesde had in mind General
Cavaignac who staged a brutal massacre of Paris workers
in June 1848; he further recalled that the executioners of
the Paris Commune were also trained in colonial expedi-
tions. Now one who aspires to the role of the Cavaignac of
our times— General Massu— who also went through a
school of colonial war in Algeria, declares unceremoniously
that after the adoption of the new constitution the French
progressive forces will be "outlawed" and threatens
"shootings in conformity with official decrees."

The fact that the French ruling circles are switching over
to methods of undisguised violence, throwing overboard
bourgeois democracy, bears witness to their increasing
weakness. Mindful of the fate which befell Hitler, the most
adroit politicians of the French ruling circles are trying
to drown the revelations of General Massu by falsely claim-
ing that the new constitution guarantees the preservation
of the republican system and legality. At the same time
they indulge in social demagogy. In his time Hitler tried
to corrupt the German working class by prattle about
"national socialism." The Soustelles are trying to invent
their own methods of duping the masses and it is not by
mere chance that chauvinism is being fanned now, as nev-
er before, in France under the flag of patriotism. At the
same time the working people are served a new version
of the American theory of "people's capitalism" in an effort
to convince them that it is possible to "abolish hired la-
bour" while leaving untouched the system of private

property and exploitation

The French reactionaries would like to establish a fas-
cist order under a legal veneer, relying on General de
Gaulle's authority. But in this respect, too, they are not
original. The "steel barons" of the Ruhr acted in the same
way when they used the Reichstag and the then President,

664

General Hindenburg, who also enjoyed a certain measure
of popularity in his country, to hand over full power to the
fascists.

This is realized by many Frenchmen who have gone
through a hard schooling of struggle against fascism. And
it is not by chance that, in the course of preparations
for the referendum, representatives of the most diverse
sections of the French people are becoming evermore ac-
tive in their opposition to the new draft constitution.
They regard the referendum as "legalization of a coup
d'etat'' as one French public figure put it a few days
ago.

The position of the leadership of the French Socialist
Party and, above all, that of its General Secretary Guy
Mollet, appears particularly unseemly against this back-
ground. He is following in the footsteps of the Right-wing
Social-Democratic Party leaders of Germany, who com-
mitted the shameful act of splitting the German working
class in the tragic days of 1933 when Hitler was in the act
of seizing power. Rejecting the idea of a common front with
the Communists, those leaders displayed short-sightedness,
expecting Hitler to make short work only of the Commu-
nists while leaving alone the Social-Democrats. That was
why the Social-Democratic group of the Reichstag in-
variably backed Hitler until May 1933. The end of it is
well known; when Hitler no longer needed the Social-
Democrats he issued a decree stating that "the Social-
Democratic Party should be considered a party hostile to
the German people, a party against which the same
measures should be applied as those applied against the
Communist Party." Then, thousands upon thousands of
upright German Social-Democrats went to concentration
camps and to the gallows in the wake of the Com-
munists.

This historical lesson is recalled today by sober-minded
leaders in the French Socialist Party. The Party's former
General Secretary, Daniel Mayer, declared on September

665

18: 'Their first step is to make preparations for banning
the Communist Party. But I submit that the disbanding
of the Communist Party would be a prelude to the dis-
banding of other parties, the Socialist Party, for example."
As to Guy Mollet and his followers, who are eager to
hang on at any cost to the running-boards of the General's
carriage, they have long since forfeited the right to call
themselves Socialists. It is a matter of common knowledge,
for instance, that it is Guy Mollet who, as former Prime
Minister, is responsible for the launching of the criminal
Suez adventure against the Arab peoples. It is equally
well known that Guy Mollet set up a nest of fascist con-
spirators in Algeria. Finally it is generally known that
it is Guy Mollet who played a particularly unsavoury
role in clearing the way for the forces of reaction last
May.

There has now been a rift in the French Socialist Par-
ty, with the result that the Socialist leaders who have
broken with Guy Mollet are launching a new party under
the banner of struggle against the forces of reaction. This
is a sign of the times. It shows once more that things
are no longer going on as they did in 1933 and that today
the forces of democracy and progress have grown im-
measurably stronger and have steeled themselves in bat-
tle.

In their attempt to install a regime of ruthless political
reaction, French ruling circles wish to weaken and sup-
press the democratic forces. But the only effect this policy
can have in the present conditions is to sharpen the in-
ternal struggle in France still further. This struggle will
keep mounting as the smoke-screen of demagogic prom-
ises to preserve republican liberties begins to be dis-
pelled.

The Soviet people are openly declaring their sympathy
for the working people of France who are fighting a hard
battle to defend the democratic rights they have won over
a number of decades. The Soviet people believe in the

666

strength of the valiant working class of France, headed by
the battle-steeled French Communist Party. The Soviet
people can easily understand the aspirations of the work-
ing class of France, of her working peasants, middle
classes and progressive-minded intellectuals, who remain
loyal to the traditions of free thought and of courageous
struggle against tyranny. The healthy elements of France
today will, beyond all doubt, find a way to consolidate
and rally their forces to beat off the onslaught of reac-
tion.

The present international situation is also not con-
ducive to the success of any attempts at reviving fascism.
Gone are the days when Hitler and Mussolini could un-
ceremoniously force political upheavals in certain
European countries. The powerful camp of peace and
democracy is exerting an ever-growing influence on the
international situation today, and the forces of reaction
are finding it more and more difficult to carry through
their plans, including plans for establishing hotbeds of
aggression and war in Europe.

One cannot fail to note in this connection the attempts
being made by French ruling circles to find a common
language and a common line in foreign policy with the
West German militarists. These circles seem inclined to
lean on the support of one of the most reactionary regimes
in Europe as is that of West Germany. In so doing, they
are prepared to sacrifice the vital national interests of
France, which faces a mortal danger in the emergence of
an increasingly powerful militarist state across her
eastern frontier. This threat was at one time repeatedly
emphasized with great persuasiveness by General de
Gaulle.

But just at the height of preparations for the refer-
endum, it is Chancellor Adenauer of the Federal Republic
of Germany who came to France scenting there the
breath of fascism. He had long tete-a-tetes with General
de Gaulle. These have led to his rapturous statement:

667

"The General has changed his views on the German
question as compared with the early post-war years."

It is indicative that the final communique of the Ade-
nauer-de Gaulle meeting contained a vague provision for
the integration of "as many European states as possible"
in the "European Community." The Foreign Minister of
France has explained that this "integration" is to include
the countries of Eastern Europe as well. Thus, twenty
years after Munich, another attempt is being made to take
France in tow behind a German tank and drag her off
to the East. One has to lose all sense of reality, however,
to place any real hopes on the success of any adventure
in Eastern Europe.

One cannot fail to note that Paris has lately been the
scene of an intense anti-Soviet campaign, whipped up with
the knowledge and approval of the French authorities and
fully in line with the usual American pattern. West Ger-
man and Hollywood anti-Soviet films are flooding the
screen and heaps of foul, slanderous literature are piled
up in the bookshop windows. Some papers have gone to
the length of calling the Soviet Union "enemy No. 1." For
what purpose is all this being done? Have not the French
authorities lost all sense of proportion?

Older people in France remember that all these are the
same tricks that were used to flirt with German mili-
tarists on the eve of the Second World War. But what did
all that add up to? The Soviet people had to shed their
blood to help deliver France from the yoke of those before
whom her rulers had bowed.

It is being clamoured in France today that the de
Gaulle-Adenauer meeting has put an end once and for all
to Franco-German contradictions. This is no more than a
blind. Only a democratic France and a democratic Ger-
many could really find common language and the way to
peaceful co-operation. The friendship of French reaction-
ary circles with the West German revenge-seekers leads
to war, not to peace.

668

It scarcely needs to be emphasized that these plans,
carried out to the detriment of French national interests,
are contrary also to the interests of the German people
and all the nations of Europe.

Let us hope that the common sense which is typical of
the French nation will prevail.

As for the Soviet people, they are, as they have always
been, the true friends of the peace-loving French people.
They wish them all success in emerging with honour from
the stern trials which confront France. The Soviet people
wish to see France occupy a deserving place as a great
democratic Power in the international arena, pursuing
her own independent policy of promoting peace and in-
ternational co-operation.

Pravda, September 22, 1958

REPLIES

TO QUESTIONS PUT BY

MURILO MARROQUIM DE SOUZA,

BRAZILIAN JOURNALIST

October 3, 1958

The Brazilian journalist and participant in the Stock-
holm Congress for Disarmament and International Co-
operation, Murilo Marroquim de Souza, addressed a num-
ber of questions to N. S. Khrushchov, Chairman of the
Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R,

N. S. Khrushchov's replies are published below.

Question: Do you consider that peace is in danger? If
so, then what, in your opinion, are the best means of
achieving so-called peaceful co-existence? Can we, in
your opinion, look forward to a favourable outcome in the
clash of the opinions and interests of the two political
blocs existing in the world?

Answer: I shall not be revealing any secret when I say
that in recent years some lovers of adventure have several
times brought mankind to the brink of war. The policy
from "positions of strength" pursued by the United States
and its partners in military blocs with the aim of
imposing their domination on other countries has already
more than once threatened to hurl the world into the
catastrophe of war. Let me recall, for example, the events
of the last two years in the Middle East: the attack upon
Egypt by Britain, France and Israel, encouraged by the
United States, the threatened attack upon Syria, the brazen
invasion of the Lebanon by U.S. forces and the occupa-
tion of Jordan by the British. As a result of the decisive

670

action taken by the peace-loving forces, the Anglo-Ameri-
can aggression in the Arab East has been halted. But the
situation in the area will continue to remain extremely
dangerous, until the U.S. and British forces leave the
Lebanon and Jordan.

Today we see yet another deterioration in the world
situation — this time in the Far East. Encouraging the
reckless intentions of Chiang Kai-shek and his supporters,
the United States is interfering in the internal affairs of
the Chinese People's Republic. At the same time, the
United States wants to mislead world opinion by talk
about a "cease fire" and to give a semblance of legality
to its aggressive moves against People's China. U.S.
aggression creates a serious threat not only to the secu-
rity of the great Chinese people, but also to the peoples
of Asia and the whole world. To prevent the further exac-
erbation of the international situation and to put an end
to tension, the United States must stop interfering in the
internal affairs of the Chinese People's Republic and
withdraw all its forces from the Taiwan area.

The aggressions in the Middle East and in the Far East
are all links in a single chain— and the direct outcome
of Dulles' policy of balancing "on the brink of war."

The Soviet Union stands for the establishment of friend-
ly relations with all countries regardless of their social
and political systems, and jwe see no obstacle to the
broadest development of all types of contact between the
socialist and capitalist countries^ We do not, however,
close our eyes to the fact that there are bound to be
points of difference or, as you term them, clashes of
opinions and interests, between the socialist and capital-
ist countries. But we consider that these differences and
clashes should not lead to war .[it must not be forgotten
that in our age, the age of atomic energy and intercon-
tinental rockets, any country which attempts to settle in-
ternational disputes by force of arms hazards its own
existence by so doing. Those in the West who do not want

671

to understand this and who stili console themselves with
hopes about the power of aircraft carriers and bombs are
thinking in terms of the last century. Only political ma-
niacs and suicides can consider war as a means of set-
tling international disputes and differences. The only ra-
tional way of settling international differences and dis-
agreements is through negotiations and mutually accept-
able agreements which take into account the interests of
all the parties concerned^

As I have already saicT, the socialist countries consist-
ently adhere to the principles of peaceful co-existence.
But for peace to triumph, the policy of peaceful co-exist-
ence should be recognized and pursued, if not by all, then
at least by the majority of countries, and above all by
those upon whose policy the question of peace or war
depends. The rulers of the United States, Britain and
their partners must renounce their policy from "positions
of strength" and their claims for domination over other
countries. The sooner the illusions and emotions of the
Western Powers give place in politics to reality and com-
mon sense, the better it will be for everybody, and for
world peace.

As regards the ideological differences between the cap-
italist and socialist countries, it is today nothing short of
madness to attempt to impose one's own ideological opin-
ions on others by force of arms. We are firmly convinced
that in life's disputes those views and conceptions will
triumph which most faithfully reflect the objective laws
of mankind's social development and the requirements not
of the minority, but of the majority of people. In our opin-
ion, Marxism-Leninism is such an ideology. Reality day by
day and hour by hour continues to confirm its correctness.

Question: Do you consider that the pursuance by the
stronger states of a policy of non-interference in the in-
ternal affairs of weaker countries supporting the policy
of the former is a necessary condition for peaceful co-
existence?

672

Answer: Undoubtedly. Non-interference in the internal
affairs of other countries is one of the basic principles to
which our country adheres in its foreign policy. Every
people is master in its own house, and it and it alone has
the right to decide what shall be its internal system.

But the imperialist Powers support a diametrically op-
posite point of view on this question. They consider inter-
ference in the internal affairs of other, weaker countries to
be perfectly normal. We do not have to go far to find exam-
ples. Consider the history of the Latin American countries.
It is in its entirety an example of unceremonious inter-
ference by foreign monopolies in the affairs of the Latin
American peoples. All remember the tragic fate of Guate-
mala, while the heroic but unequal struggle of the people
of Cuba for their freedom profoundly moves all honest
people everywhere in the world.

We resolutely condemn the use of the diktat in inter-
national relations. The principle of non-interference in
the affairs of other countries must be observed by all
countries, not only in words but in deeds.

Question: In the latest joint communique signed by
the Governments of the Soviet Union and the People's
Republic of China direct reference is made to Latin Amer-
ica for the first time. What can you say in this connection?

Answer: You apparently have in mind the communique
regarding the meeting in Peking between the Chairman
of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of
China and the Chairman of the Chinese People's Republic
Mao Tse-tung and myself early in August. The commu-
nique, it will be recalled, stated that the Soviet Union and
People's China firmly support the just struggle of the peo-
ples of the United Arab Republic, the Republic of Iraq and
of the other Arab countries, and also the national-liberation
movement of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin
America.

A great historical transformation is taking place before
our eyes: more and more nations are taking the path of

673

just struggle against colonialism and against exploita-
tion by foreign monopolies. It is not only the peoples of
the colonies and dependent countries of Asia and Africa
who are taking this path: so, too, are the peoples of
Latin America. This is, of course, understandable. For
many decades American, British and other foreign monop-
olies have like giant leeches attached themselves to the
living body of Latin America and are draining her natural
wealth, ruthlessly exploiting her peoples and distorting the
economies of the Latin American countries, and thus
obstructing their independent development. Can the peoples
of Latin America accept such a state of affairs?

The age of colonialists, the days when they ruled over
the fates of countries and peoples, making and remaking
the map of the world in accordance with their own de-
sires, everywhere installing reactionary regimes detested
by the people, have gone for ever. The national-liberation
struggle of the peoples of Asia and Africa, and also of
the peoples of Latin America, is the unconquerable move-
ment of our time. The forces of colonialism and aggres-
sion cannot hold back this mighty irresistible flood. The
glorious traditions of the struggle of the Latin American
peoples for democracy and national independence are well
known to the Soviet people. The Soviet Union, People's
China and other socialist countries firmly oppose the en-
slavement and exploitation of some countries by others.
Our sympathies have always been and will always be on
the side of the just cause, on the side of those who are
fighting to consolidate the independence and sovereignty
of their countries.

Question: Do you consider that the establishment of
diplomatic relations between our countries is a nec-
essary preliminary condition for trade between the Soviet
Union and Brazil?

Answer: I have already had occasion to state the Soviet
point of view regarding the normalization of relations
between the Soviet Union and Brazil to the Brazilian

674

journalists Martorelli and Fleuri last November. I can
state again that the absence of normal diplomatic rela-
tions between two such countries as the Soviet Union
and Brazil, which throughout their whole existence have
never had any conflicts or clashes, is altogether unjusti-
fiable. The lack of normal diplomatic relations does not, of
course, facilitate the development of economic relations,
trade and cultural contacts, but makes them more difficult.

Question: Do you consider that the Soviet Union could
at the present time assist the industrialization of Brazil
by supplying her with engineering equipment and spe-
cialists?

Answer: We Soviet people understand and sympathize
with the desire of other peoples to develop their own
economies independent of foreign capital. The Soviet
Union has acquired great experience in its own industrial-
ization and willingly shares it with countries wishing to
take advantage of it in their own economic development.

The Soviet Government would certainly consider an
appropriate request from the Brazilian Government and
render such assistance as lies within its power in the
industrial development of Brazil. Representatives of the
two countries could discuss this question and find suit-
able mutually acceptable forms of co-operation. It would
be possible to reach agreement on the delivery of Soviet
machinery and plant, on the sending of Soviet experts to
Brazil and on the training and education of Brazilian
specialists in the Soviet Union.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that the improve-
ment and normalization of relations between our two
countries would be in the interests of our peoples and of
peace throughout the world.

Respectfully,

N. KHRUSHCHOV
October 3, 1958
International Affairs, No. 11, 1968

REPLY
TO QUESTION OF TASS CORRESPONDENT

In connection with some statements made by D wight
D. Eisenhower, President of the United States, at his press
conference on October 1, a TASS correspondent asked
N. S. Khrushchov, Chairman of the Council of Ministers
of the U.S.S.R., the following question:

At his press conference on October 1, U.S. President
Dwight D. Eisenhower asserted that the actions of the
Chinese People's Republic in the Taiwan Straits, aimed
at liberating age-old Chinese territory from the Chiang
Kai-shek clique, could not be regarded as civil war, that
is, as an internal affair of the Chinese people. In substan-
tiation of his assertion, the President stated: "If it is a
civil war, why is Russia already saying, through
Mr. Khrushchov in his letters, that they are ready to par-
ticipate in this war! If that is a civil war, I am quite ig-
norant as to what the term really means."

How can this statement of the U.S. President be regard-
ed? As far as it is known, none of the statements made
by the Soviet Government has given any grounds for
such assertions.

The following is N. S. Khrushchov's reply to the TASS
correspondent's question:

I fully agree that at the aforementioned press confer-
ence President Eisenhower gave an absolutely incorrect

676

interpretation of the statements made by the Soviet
Government on the developments in the Taiwan area. One
can only express surprise at the cavalier fashion in which
the Soviet Union's stand has been distorted. I would
never have believed that such methods would be employed.
I am still convinced that the President of the United
States correctly understands our statements pertaining to
the situation in the Taiwan Straits. And if distortions are
nonetheless made of the Soviet Government's statements
which are dictated by a desire to preserve peace in the
Far East, this merely proves that those who resort to such
methods are guided, not by the interests of peace, but by
the interests of a certain exclusive group in the United
States which, for the sake of enrichment, is pursuing a
policy of increasingly aggravating international tension
and preparing for a new war.

But the assertions— patently at variance with the facts
— with the aid of which certain people seek to represent
the Soviet Government's stand in a distorted light can-
not yield the results expected by their authors. The So-
viet Union's stand is clear-cut, consistent and well de-
fined. The Soviet Government has unequivocally stated, in
its messages to President Eisenhower in particular, that
if the United States should unleash war against our
friend and ally, the Chinese People's Republic, the Soviet
Union would fully carry out its obligations under the
Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance
with the Chinese People's Republic, and that an attack
on the Chinese People's Republic represents an attack on
the Soviet Union.

Is there the slightest hint in this that the Soviet Union,
as President Eisenhower insists, is prepared to take
part in the civil war in China? We have declared, and
declare once again, something entirely different— the So-
viet Union will come to the assistance of the Chinese
People's Republic if it is attacked from without— to

677

put it more concretely, if the United States attacks the
Chinese People's Republic.

The Soviet Government has found it necessary to issue
this warning because the situation in the Far East has
been developing in such a manner that interference by the
United States in China's domestic affairs has brought
the U.S.A. to the very brink of direct military conflict
with the Chinese People's Republic. And if the United
States goes over the brink, the Soviet Union will not
remain on the side lines. But we have never interfered,
and do not intend to interfere, in the civil war which the
Chinese people are waging against the Chiang Kai-shek
clique.

It is the inalienable right of every people to arrange
their domestic affairs as they see fit. The intention of
regaining their islands of Chinmentao and Matsutao and
liberating Taiwan and Penghuletao is an internal affair
of the Chinese people. It is common knowledge that these
lands belonged to China long before Columbus discovered
America. And the U.S. Government's attempts to prevent
the Chinese people from completing their struggle against
the Chiang Kai-shek clique expelled from the mainland,
and from liberating age-old Chinese territory constitute
gross and open interference by the United States in the
civil war in China.

This President Eisenhower prefers to ignore.

In conclusion, I consider it necessary once again to
underline that the U.S. Government is assuming an ex-
ceptionally grave responsibility in the face of the peoples
and of history for all the consequences which may result
from the intolerable interference by the U.S.A. in China's
internal affairs and the aggressive actions of the American
armed forces in the Taiwan Strait area.

Pravda, October 6, 1958

SPEECH

AT RECEPTION BY VICE-PRESIDENT

OF UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC,

MARSHAL ABDUL HAKIM AMER

October 21, 1958

Dear Mr. Vice-President,

Dear Guests, accompanying Marshal Abdul Hakim
Amer,

Dear Comrades and Friends,

Permit me to express profound appreciation for the kind
words which you, Mr. Vice-President, have addressed to
our people and to our Government. We have been very
pleased to hear in your speech an appreciation and cor-
rect understanding of the Soviet Government's policy.

The Soviet Government stands firmly for a policy of
struggle for peace, for peaceful co-existence, for the
creation of a situation in which no state may intervene in
the internal affairs of other countries. We want to live in
peace and friendship with all peoples. A splendid mani-
festation of these good relations is the friendly relations
which have developed between our land and the United
Arab Republic and other countries. There are very many
such countries and I shall not undertake to enumerate
them.

The friendly relations established between our countries
show convincingly that states with different political and
economic systems can live in harmony and friendship.
The difference in social systems does not prevent us from
conducting mutually advantageous trade* from exchang

679

ing experience and achievements in the fields of econom-
ics, science and the arts.

You have spoken correctly of the Soviet Union's policy
concerning economic assistance to underdeveloped coun-
tries. Disinterested aid to those countries is characteris-
tic of the policy of the Soviet Government and of the
governments of the other socialist countries. Such a policy
is being carried out only by the Soviet Union and the
other socialist countries, which want to consolidate
friendly relations with all peoples, and help to strengthen
the economy of the peaceful countries, irrespective of
their political systems. We have concluded agreements
with you on economic assistance and are conscientiously
fulfilling them. This is the foundation of our friendly
economic relations.

The strengthening of the economy of the United Arab
Republic and other independent countries, the advance of
their industry not only do not frighten us, as their suc-
cesses frighten the imperialists, but give us instead sincere
joy. Why? Because the higher the development of your
economy and the higher the living standards of your peo-
ple, the stronger will be your state and the more suc-
cessfully will you uphold your independence.

The imperialist states give "aid" to other countries,
above all, by setting up military bases on their territo
ries, dispatching their troops there and supplying them
with rocket weapons. It turns out that for every dollar
they spend on this, they compel these countries to expend
five dollars for armaments. Such "aid" leads to exhaust-
ing the economy of these countries and placing them in
jeopardy, since rocket bases may attract the fire of other
rockets. Such a policy does not promote the cause of
peace but only complicates the international situation and
endangers those countries in which foreign military bases
are set up.

The press in Western states devotes much space to the
need for rendering economic aid to underdeveloped coun-

6S0

tries. We are in favour of such assistance. Let us compete
in this field. But such aid must be rendered as to enable
the country assisted to really develop its economy and to
rid itself of dependence on economically stronger coun-
tries, actually ensuring its independence. It is precisely
such assistance that the underdeveloped countries need.

The imperialist states, however, will never accept this.
The Rockefellers cannot afford to help underdeveloped
countries build up their own industry so that this industry
could compete with them or the country in question could
do without purchasing the goods manufactured by the capi-
talist monopolies. I have referred to the Rockefellers, but
alMhe monopolists are alike in this.
[Here is the way the imperialists would like to render
assistance: to ship to countries in need some wheat, but-
ter and other goods which cannot be sold and by this
"gesture of good will" show the whole world that they are
helping the hungry. They are advertising that they are
rendering disinterested assistance to people in need, but
in fact they wish to make the poor permanently depend-
ent on the rich. And they themselves do not conceal that
if they do not render such aid this will still further im-
pel the peoples of the colonial countries and those who
have cast off the colonial yoke to fight for their genuine
independence in all respects. I

If underdeveloped countries are to be helped, this must
be done in a way to enable them to increase their eco-
nomic potential, in order to strengthen these states, and
help them stand on their own feet. But the imperialists
cannot accept this because it contradicts the essence of
imperialism.

There is no friction in relations between the Soviet
Union and the Arab countries. Relations of sincere friend-
ship and co-operation have been established between our
countries. We are not interested in your wealth. Every-
thing you possess we have at home, and what we have
not enough of we can buy from you on a mutually ad-

6St

vantageous basis. But for a pennyworth of assistance the
imperialists want to rob you of pounds. They need your
oil, they need the diamonds of Africa, they need other
minerals and products. They want to keep these countries
in subjection, and to ruthlessly exploit the peoples of the
colonial and dependent countries.

In a conversation a representative of a big imperialist
Power told me that the Soviet Union and the Western
Powers should pool their efforts in rendering assistance
to underdeveloped countries. On what terms, I asked,
and on what basis? The terms, he said, are such that for
every dollar of assistance that you give, we shall give
three. I told this representative that we cannot agree to
cover up the imperialist policy, because the imperialists
offer assistance to these countries on the condition of
keeping them dependent on imperialist states. Thus they
offer the three dollars, not because they wish to help such
countries acquire independence, but because they fear the
colonial peoples rising in struggle for their independence.

The imperialists have reduced those countries to pov-
erty, their peoples are rising in rebellion, and now the
imperialists would like us to help them pacify the insur-
gent peoples for the sake of maintaining the old order
and to give our money for this purpose. We would get
nothing from this, whereas the imperialists would con-
tinue to obtain oil, uranium and other resources for a
song, virtually for nothing.

The imperialists have been plundering the peoples of
Asia and Africa for centuries. They do not mind boasting
that high living standards have been attained in their
countries. But this is largely due to the exploitation of
the Afro-Asian peoples, to the fact that millions of people
have died of poverty and starvation.

The imperialists have pumped tremendous wealth out
of the colonial and dependent countries. Let them return
at least a portion of what they have plundered. They are
under obligation to do this.

682

Our country has taken no hand in colonial plunder.
From the moment Soviet power was proclaimed Lenin
declared that our state was vigorously opposed to the im-
perialist colonial policy, the enslavement and oppression
of some countries by others. And our state has undeviat-
ingly carried out ,and will continue to carry out such a
policy.

^The imperialists talk a great deal about assistance to
underdeveloped countries. But if they indeed want to
render assistance, why not introduce the following proce-
dure: They are pumping out, for instance, Middle East oil.
Then let them earmark a definite proportion of their profits
obtained by exploiting the natural resources of those coun-
tries to a fund for assisting underdeveloped countries. That
would be a just solution. The capitalist countries are
obligated to return their plunder to the exploited peoples
of the Afro-Asian countries. They have amassed tremen-
dous wealth out of it. And it would be only just if they set
up their assistance fund for underdeveloped countries in
proportion to the profits they have derived from exploiting
them.' As for the Soviet Union, it has helped and will con-
tinueJto help underdeveloped countries disinterestedly, by
lending direct assistance. We come to terms on an honest
basis with those countries which need such assistance.
Everyone can see that our assistance differs fundamen-
tally from that "aid" which the imperialists are rendering
underdeveloped countries.

It would be a different matter if an international fund
for helping underdeveloped countries were to be set up
from the savings made by reducing armed forces and cut-
ting military budgets. All of us, the Soviet Union includ-
ed, bear these expenditures. And if we succeeded in halt-
ing the cold war, reducing armed forces and cutting mili-
tary budgets it would be fair to earmark the means thus
released to an international fund of economic assistance
to underdeveloped countries.

683

We would recommend to the imperialist countries that
instead of spending money on dispatching their troops
for intervention, as was the case in the Lebanon and
Jordan, they transfer these means to countries in need of
assistance. For they have moved troops, tanks and other
military equipment to the Lebanon and Jordan and now
they must move them back. This is unwise economically
and politically.

The purpose of the intervention in the Lebanon and
Jordan was to frighten the peoples. But it is high time
to realize that lions can no longer frighten peoples by
their roaring, and that it is a thing of the past for other
countries to be seized with impunity and nations plun-
dered. New forces have appeared: the Soviet Union,
the Chinese People's Republic and the other socialist
countries. And these countries have all that is needed to
bar the road to the imperialists and not permit them to
frighten those peoples who are still weak today but fully
determined to fight for their freedom and independence.

iThe imperialists want to build up a kind of interna-
tional police force which would virtually be under the
control of the United States and be used to suppress the
peoples who have risen against colonial slavery. This will
not succeed! The peace-loving peoples are strong enough
to counter intrigues of the imperialists, to frustrate their
perfidious designs. There is no force on earth which could
halt the movement of the peoples fighting for their inde-
pendence, for their liberation.

We salute the Arab peopler the United Arab Republic!
We salute the revolution in Iraq, we salute the Govern-
ment of the Republic of Iraq headed by Premier Kassem!
We salute all the peoples who are fighting for the libera-
tion of their countries from colonial dependence.

Permit me to propose a toast to the friendship between
the peoples of the Soviet Union and the United Arab
Republic, to the friendship between all peace-loving
peoples, to world peace, tx> the successes of the peoples

684

fighting against colonial oppression and striving to
strengthen their independence, to the prosperity of the
peoples of the United Arab Republic, to the good health
of our friend, esteemed President Gamal Abdel Nasser,
to the good health of all our guests, to your good health,
Mr. Abdul Hakim Amer!

(N. S. Khrushchov's speech was listened to with great
attention and was repeatedly interrupted by bursts of
applause.)

SPEECH
AT GRAND KREMLIN PALACE RECEPTION IN HONOUR
OF PARTICIPANTS OF AFRO-ASIAN WRITERS'
CONFERENCE IN TASHKENT

October 22, 1958

Dear Comrades and Friends,

On behalf of the Soviet Government, I am very pleased
to welcome you, the leading representatives of literature
in the Asian and African countries, to the capital of our
country, Moscow.

All of us have followed the work of your conference
with great interest. This interest is fully understandable,
for all progressive people in the world know and highly
appreciate the active role played by writers in develop-
ing the national awareness of the peoples of Asia and
Africa, who are fighting for liberation from the shameful
chains of colonialism and imperialist oppression. But the
role of the writers is even greater in those countries
which have won their freedom and independence. There,
literature becomes a mighty force in building a new life.

All those who sincerely sympathize with the fate of
your peoples could not but rejoice that the meeting of
Asian and African writers in Tashkent was so large and
so representative.

The Tashkent Conference was attended by many well-
known writers and poets of whom the peoples are proud.
A writer is a mighty force, because his words carry great
weight. It is not for nothing that the people say: A word
is not an arrow but it strikes home.

686

Asia and Africa are continents of ancient cultures, but
they have never witnessed so impressive an assembly
of men of letters as the one you have attended. This is
the first time that a meeting has been held of writers and
poets of so many countries and nationalities, both large
and small: People's China, India, the United Arab Repub-
lic, our own Central Asian Republics, Ghana, the Ivory
Coast, and other countries. In addition to delegates from
countries which have already won their freedom and in-
dependence, it was attended by writers from countries
which are still languishing under colonial oppression,
from countries fighting for their liberation.

Comrades and friends, you are people of various polit-
ical convictions, you profess different religions. But you
are all made kith and kin by a great love for your peoples,
a respect for their original national traditions and their
literary treasures, and by common hatred of imperialism,
colonialism and racial discrimination. And the mighty
voice of your conference has been heard all over the five
continents.

It can safely be said that your unanimity of views on
the paramount questions of developing literatures and
friendly exchanges between thern will be another thorn in
the flesh of the imperialists and the colonialists.

It is probable that in some places the imperialists and
colonialists will unloose their hounds against you with
the command to smear the unity which you have demon-
strated so forcefully and which is so hateful to them. But,
as an Eastern saying goes, an enemy's anger is the high-
est approbation.

Men of good will, all those who believe that reason will
prevail over obscurantism, all those who are open to un-
derstanding, who want peace on earth, will approve your
declaration as a document of good will. The Soviet people
whole-heartedly welcome the decision nf your confer-
ence. (Applause.)

Your fine aspirations are especially understandable to us

687

Soviet people. The Soviet people have erected on the ruins
of tsarist Russia — which was a prison-house of nations — a
mighty multi-national socialist state, a union of equal so-
cialist republics in each of which new, impressive cultures,
national in form and socialist in content, have devel-
oped and flourished in the years of Soviet power.

In travelling through our country, all of you have had
every opportunity to become acquainted with the cultures
of the Soviet republics. Our achievements cannot help
bringing satisfaction to all upright people. But we ourselves
regard them as only the beginning of a great advance and
flowering of the national cultures of our peoples. The
Soviet people understand full well your keen desire for
flourishing cultures in all Asian and African countries,
and share and welcome it with all their hearts.

I was told that a new expression — the spirit of Tash-
kent— was born in the course of your conference in the
speeches made there. You imply by this the friendly
mutual understanding and co-operation between creative
artists of different peoples in the struggle for the great
objectives of mankind, strong ties between writers and the
life of their peoples, and active participation of literature
in the fight for the freedom and independence of your
countries and in building a new life where freedom and
independence have already been won.

All my colleagues and I want the spirit of friendship
and understanding which united you at the conference
to mature and develop. In our time, a writer — provided,
of course, he is a good one — a writer linked with the
people, breathing their thoughts and aspirations, is not
merely a chronicler of life but a fighter and a standard-
bearer of progress.

Is there any doubt that what united you at the con-
ference will not only promote the development of
fruitful contacts between the literatures of Asia and
Africa, these two great continents, but will also contrib-
ute to the successful development of world culture and

688

to the consolidation of ties between the progressive cul-
ture of the East and the progressive culture of the West?

In cordially greeting you on behalf of the Soviet Gov-
ernment, I would also like to thank you for the kind senti-
ments for the Soviet people spoken in appreciation of their
hospitality and cordiality, to thank you for what you have
said with such warmth and enthusiasm about the achieve-
ments of our country.

In conclusion, I would like to wish each one of you
success in your work and your art which helps the peoples
of your countries to achieve their vital goals and assists
them in the struggle for the happy future of mankind.
Love and respect from the people is the writers' greatest
reward.

I wish you to add by your fruitful work to the treas-
ury of world culture, and to make a worthy contribution
to the common efforts of the peoples fighting for peace on
earth. (Applause.)

Allow me to propose a toast to your health, and to
your creative achievements for the good of the peoples.
(Applause.)

To happiness and peace between all peoples, to peace
throughout the world. (Stormy applause.)

SPEECH

AT KREMLIN RECEPTION IN HONOUR

OF VICE-PRESIDENT OF UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC,

MARSHAL ABDUL HAKIM AMER

October 23, 1958

Dear Mr. Vice-President,

Dear Guests, accompanying Marshal Adbul Hakim
Amer,

Dear Comrades and Friends,

We note with great satisfaction, our dear guests, that
your visit to the Soviet Union represents a new contribu-
tion to the development of co-operation between the
Soviet Union and the United Arab Republic and will help
strengthen the ties of our friendship in the interests of
peace in the Middle East and the world over. This visit
is fresh confirmation of the fact that the friendly contacts
between the leaders of the Soviet Union and the United
Arab Republic are, to an ever-increasing extent, devel-
oping into a good tradition. Such contacts correspond to
the mutual interests of the Soviet and Arab peoples and
promote economic and cultural ties between our coun-
tries.

Now, as before, we declare that we wish to develop
our relations with all countries of the Middle East, with-
out exception, and also with all other countries, strictly
in accordance with the policy of equality, peaceful co-
existence and non-interference in the internal affairs of
other states.

690

Now the people of your country, having cast off colonial
oppression, are enthusiastically working for the regenera-
tion of their country. Under the leadership of their Gov-
ernment, the Egyptians and Syrians, having united in one
state, are working heart and soul to build the edifice of
their independent state. New industrial plants, schools,
clinics and institutes are rising in different parts of your
country. The defence potential of the United Arab Repub-
lic— a token of its independence — is increasing. These
achievements of your country on the road of national re-
nascence meet with a warm response and sympathy from
all the peoples of the Soviet Union. An expression of these
sentiments is the Soviet Union's fraternal support for the
noble cause of your country's national development and
its disinterested aid in the construction of mutually
agreed industrial plants within the framework of a gener-
al plan aimed at consolidating the political and econom-
ic independence of the United Arab Republic. The Soviet
Union has rendered, and will continue to render, aid in
economic planning, in the construction of new plants, in
the utilization of water resources and the reclamation
of arid lands.

The Soviet Government has considered the request you
have conveyed from the Government of the United Arab
Republic for assistance in the construction of the first
section of the Aswan Dam.

Acting upon the friendly relations between our two
countries and in the interests of strengthening them, the
Soviet Government has undertaken to participate in the
construction of the first section of the Aswan Dam, a pro-
ject which is of such great importance to the national
economy of the United Arab Republic and to the consolida-
tion of its national independence.

The Soviet Government is willing to send the nec-
essary number of specialists to the United Arab Repub-
lic, to supply the United Arab Republic with the neces-
sary machinery and equipment and with the materials it

691

lacks for the accomplishment of this project, and to grant
a loan of up to 400 million rubles to cover the expenses
involved.

The repayment of the Soviet Union's investment in this
project is to begin on the completion of the first section
of the construction.

In conformity with the wishes of the Government of the
United Arab Republic, we agree to send our specialists
to Cairo in the near future to discuss with your competent
representatives the details of this project and to draft
an appropriate agreement between our two countries.

Mr. Vice-President, our meetings with you and the
frank exchange of opinion we have had on a number of
international problems, which have taken place in a cor-
dial and friendly atmosphere, are bound to promote and
cement the bonds of friendship between our two countries.

As ;n previous discussions between the government
leaders of the Soviet Union and the United Arab Repub-
lic, we have ascertained that our views coincide on cur-
rent international problems of decisive importance for the
preservation and consolidation of world peace. This iden-
tity of views is not a matter of mere coincidence. It follows
from the entire course of historical development of our
peoples and rests on the principles of sincere friendship
and unselfish co-operation, in the name of peace and the
prosperity of the peoples of our countries.

At the United Nations, the Soviet Union and the United
Arab Republic maintain a common stand on disarmament,
the banning of nuclear weapons, the ending of nuclear
tests and on other important questions connected with
safeguarding international peace and security.

We are unanimous in recognizing that the main task be-
fore the peace forces in the Middle East at present is to
secure the earliest possible withdrawal of American
troops from the Lebanon and of British troops from Jor-
dan and to ensure the peace and tranquility essential for
the creative work of the population of the Arab countries

692

in developing their national economy and raising their
cultural and living standards.

With all our hearts we wish further success to the
friendly peoples of the United Arab Republic in strengthen-
ing peace and national independence and in working for
economic prosperity and for the unity of the Arab nations.

May the edifice of our friendship stand as firm and as
eternal as the ancient pyramids on the banks of the Nile—
the majestic witnesses to the glorious centuries-old history
of your peoples.

Permit me to propose a toast to the courageous people
of the United Arab Republic, whose heroic struggle for
their independence has evoked the admiration of all
throughout the world and in whose successes all honest
people rejoice.

To the health of our friend, President Gamal Abdel
Nasser!

To the health of the members of the United Arab Repub-
lic's Government!

To our friendship!

To your health, Mr. Vice-President!

To your health, dear friends!

Long live the friendship of the peoples of the Soviet
Union and the United Arab Republic!

(N. S. Khrushchov's speech was met with hearty ap-
plause.)

SPEECH

WELCOMING POLISH PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC

DELEGATION IN MOSCOW

October 25, 1958

Dear Comrade Gomulka,

Dear Comrade Zawadski,

Dear Comrade Cyrankiewicz,

Dear Comrades, Members of the Delegation of the
Polish People's Republic,

On behalf of the Central Committee of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union, the Presidium of the Supreme
Soviet of the U.S.S.R. and the Soviet Government, I wel-
come you heartily in the Soviet capital — Moscow. All
Soviet people welcome you, the representatives of the
fraternal Polish people, who advance along the path of
building a new, socialist life under the tested leadership of
the Polish United Workers' Party.

Your present visit to the Soviet Union, dear comrades,
is a new token of the continuously developing inviolable
friendship of the Soviet and Polish peoples. Just two
years have passed since the delegation of the Polish
People's Republic headed by our friend Comrade Gomul-
ka came to our country in the autumn of 1956. It is grati-
fying to note that the friendship of the Polish and Soviet
peoples has taken new strength and the fraternal co-oper-
ation between our countries has been cemented. Enemy
attempts have failed to undermine, and even to weaken,
our friendship, to divert the peoples of Poland and the

694

Soviet Union from the right path of fraternal friendship,
co-operation and mutual assistance, which they are fol-
lowing hand in hand. The present visit of the delegation
of the Polish People's Republic to the Soviet Union will
unquestionably be a new, most important step forward
along this path.

The facts of life confirm convincingly that the friend-
ship between our countries, based as it is on the princi-
ples of proletarian internationalism and all-round mutual
support, accords with the basic interests of our peoples,
the interests of the socialist camp as a whole. It is in
strengthening this friendship in every way that we have
a guarantee of the successful accomplishment of the his-
torical task of building socialism and communism in our
countries. At the same time our fraternal co-operation is
an important factor strengthening peace and security in
Europe and the world.

Dear friends, during your stay in the Soviet Union you
will see again that the peoples of the Soviet Union have
profound feelings of love and friendship for the fraternal
Polish people.

You have come to us on the eve of the 41st anniversary
of the Great October Socialist Revolution. We are happy
that you will be our guests at this time and that together
with our people you will take part in celebrating that
glorious anniversary.

Welcome, our dear friends!

SPEECH

AT KREMLIN DINNER IN HONOUR

OF POLISH PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC DELEGATION

October 25, 1958

Dear Polish Friends,

We are happy to welcome you again, leaders of the
Polish People's Democracy.

We bid hearty welcome to the First Secretary of the
Central Committee of the Polish United Workers' Party,
Comrade Gomulka, loyal son of the Polish people, tireless
fighter for peace and socialism, our friend who is well
known and deeply respected in this country.

We bid hearty welcome to the Chairman of the State
Council of the Polish People's Republic, our friend Com-
rade Zawadski.

We extend cordial greetings to the Chairman of the
Council of Ministers of the Polish People's Republic, our
friend Comrade Cyrankiewicz.

We bid cordial welcome to all members of the delega-
tion of the Polish People's Republic.

The arrival from Poland of this representative delega-
tion is a new token of growing Soviet-Polish friendship
and an expression of ideological kinship between our
Communist parties.

Fraternal friendship and inviolable unity are the chief
elements characterizing the relations between the peoples
of Poland and the Soviet Union, the peoples of all the
socialist countries. The very nature of the social system

696

in our countries gives impetus to mutual assistance and
support among free peoples. The unity of countries of
the socialist camp does not in the least detract from their
national independence. Quite the reverse. It is the best
guarantee of the sovereignty and security of each indi-
vidual socialist country and all the socialist countries as
a whole.

The lessons of history show that the building of social-
ism and communism makes better progress when all the
socialist countries unite their efforts in that great cause.
Socialism and communism cannot be successfully built on
one's own, in isolation from one's fellow-fighters in other
countries.

By advancing in a broad and united front we achieve
higher rates of progress in the fraternal countries towards
socialism and communism, a higher standard of living
for our peoples. Thereby we cement world peace and in-
fuse greater confidence in the triumph of our just cause
into all democratic, progressive, peace-loving forces.

Hundreds of millions of ordinary people throughout the
world support the socialist camp and are proud of the
successes scored by the socialist countries. At the same
time, our successes cause irritation and hatred among
the imperialists, who are trying in every way to check-
rein our advance. But all the exertions of the imperialists
are doomed to failure, because the socialist camp is
powerful and strong as never before.

Allow me to propose a toast to new successes of the
fraternal Polish people in building socialism!

To inviolable Polish-Soviet friendship!

To the further strengthening of friendship and solidar-
ity among all the countries of the socialist camp!

To world peace!

To your health, dear Comrade Gomulka!

To your health, dear Comrade Zawadski!

To your health, dear Comrade Cyrankiewicz!

To your health, dear Polish friends!

SPEECH

AT LUNCHEON GIVEN

BY COMRADE WLADYSLAW GOMULKA, CHAIRMAN

OF POLISH PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC DELEGATION

October 27, 1958

Dear Comrade Gomulka,
Dear Comrade Zawadski,
Dear Comrade Cyrankiewicz,
Dear Comrades and Friends,

To begin with, allow me on behalf of the Central Com-
mittee of the C.P.S.U. and the Soviet Government, on be-
half of all the Soviet comrades present here, and on my
own behalf, to convey hearty thanks to Comrade Gomul-
ka the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the
Polish United Workers' Party, and Comrade Cyrankiew-
icz, the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the
P P R for the warm sentiments and kind wishes ad-
dressed by them to the Soviet people, the Communist Party
and the Government of the Soviet Union on behalf ol the
Polish United Workers' Party, the Government of the Po-
lish People's Republic and the people of Poland

The Soviet people derive deep satisfaction from the
thought that the relations of enduring and inviolable
friendship between our peoples and states are becoming
more intimate and cordial every day.

We have always prized this fraternal friendship and, lor
our part, shall do everything to strengthen it still more.
The friendship of the peoples of the Soviet Union and
Poland, like that of all the peoples of the socialist coun-
ts

tries, works for the triumph of socialism and communism.
Socialism and international friendship are inseparably
connected. The closer the friendship of our peoples, the
closer their solidarity and fraternal co-operation, the
greater the scale and the impact of the achievements of
socialist construction. This is an objective law of historical
development. For this reason, we must cherish our friend-
ship and preserve it lovingly from all the intrigues of the
enemies of socialism.

The friendship and unity of our countries serves the best
interests not only of the socialist camp, but of all progres-
sive mankind. By helping each other in their economic de-
velopment our peoples add to the power of the whole so-
cialist camp, that unconquerable stronghold of socialism
and insuperable obstacle to warmongers. The socialist
camp is a reliable bulwark of world peace. All people of
good will, all who want peace and hate war, have a vested
interest in strengthening it and its solidarity.

The forces inimical to peace are forever seeking
to shake the unity of the socialist camp, to split
it. Your exertions are in vain, Messrs. Imperialists! The
unity of the socialist countries is now durable as never
before. A big part in cementing this unity is played by the
friendship and co-operation of the Polish People's Republic
and the Soviet Union. Comrade Gomulka was absolutely
right when he said at the 12th Plenary Meeting of the
Central Committee of the Polish United Workers' Party
that any attempt of the reactionaries, of the various
imperialist groups, to drive in a wedge between
Poland and the Soviet Union, to undermine our friend-
ship, to breach the unity of the socialist camp, will fail
inevitably.

Permit me to propose a toast to further successes
of the Polish people in building socialism, in develop-
ing their economy and culture, in improving the living
standard of the working people!

699

To the Polish United Workers' Party, to its Central
Committee, to the health of the First Secretary of the
Central Committee, Comrade Gomulka!

To the State Council of the Polish People's Republic, to
the health of its Chairman, Comrade Zawadski!

To the Council of Ministers of the Polish People's Re-
public and the head of the Polish Government, Comrade
Cyrankiewicz!

To the health of all the members of the delegation of
the Polish People's Republic!

To inviolable fraternal Soviet-Polish friendship, to
world peace!

SPEECH

AT BALTIC WORKS MEETING DURING STAY

IN LENINGRAD

OF POLISH PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC DELEGATION

November 3, 1958

Dear Leningrad comrades, dear comrades of the Baltic
Works,

Allow me to greet you heartily on behalf of the Central
Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
and the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R. (Applause.)

Spokesmen of your works, and of your Party and Young
Communist League organizations have spoken well about
meeting our dear friends, the Polish People's Republic del-
egation headed by Comrade Gomulka. This visit of the
delegation from People's Poland is very important.

The vital interests of our two countries have become in-
terwoven historically. The fundamental interests of the So-
viet and Polish peoples are so close and inseparable that
it is not enough for us merely to live in peace. To build
the new life successfully, to defend the gains of socialism
in our countries, in the entire socialist camp, the peoples
of our countries must live in solid friendship. The frater-
nal friendship of the peoples of the socialist countries is
that tremendous force which is capable of preventing war
in Europe and the world.

After all, we and the Polish people have common ene-
mies, since any armed attack on Poland would bring the
theatre of war directly to the frontiers of the Soviet Union.
On the other hand, an attack on the U.S.S.R. from the
West is most likely to occur somewhere across Polish ter-

701

ritory, and would thus inevitably also affect her interests.
This is why we must see to it that our power grows and the
friendship between our countries, between the peoples of
the Soviet Union and Poland, takes new strength.

The peoples of the Soviet Union and the toilers of Peo-
ple's Poland are highly conscious of the need to strengthen
their friendship. The relations which now exist between
our countries are good friendly relations. There are no ques-
tions to disunite us, on which we have our own special
opinion, distinct from the viewpoint of our Polish com-
rades. Nor do I expect any particular snags, hitches or
skids to arise in the future along the path of greater
friendship between the peoples of our countries.

Our Polish brothers are building socialism. The Soviet
people are advancing successfully towards communism.
We rejoice at each other's successes, because we have a
single great goal. (Stormy applause.)

Our Polish friends, I must say, hold an advantage, for
they are not building socialism alone. Today many coun-
tries are making good progress in building socialism. The
great socialist camp is growing and gaining strength. We,
the Soviet people, had a harder time. When the workers
and soldiers of Petrograd rose against the rule of the bour-
geoisie, against capitalism, and this uprising, supported
by the working class, the working peasantry of all Russia,
was crowned with a great victory— the establishment of
Soviet power— our country was the only working people's
state in a turbulent capitalist ocean. There were so many
Kersons and other antagonists of all kinds after the vic-
tory of the Great October Socialist Revolution who opposed
us and did all they could to crush us. We did not have
a trained army then, nor experience in governing a country.
We did not have our own intelligentsia. What is more,
many people of the old intelligentsia followed the events
then unfolding in Russia with a wolf's eye, as the saying

goes.

The workers, the working people of our country who

702

had taken power, did not flinch in face of difficulties, and
did not surrender to the enemy. They surmounted all hard-
ships with courage — survived hunger and the Civil War
and defended their homeland against the interventionists.
The imperialists calculated literally the days when,
in their opinion, Soviet power in Russia would crum-
ble. They expected the Soviet Republic, that giant on "feet
of clay," as they called it, to topple any minute under the
joint onslaught of domestic and external counter-revolu-
tionary forces. But, thank God, here we are. Days, months
and years came and went, and our Soviet country took
new strength, steeled itself, crushing its enemies. It has
become a great socialist Power — the glory and pride of
working people throughout the world. (Stormy applause.
Cries: "Hurrah!")

Now all can see that the "feet of clay" described by
our class enemies were really stronger than the hardest
granite. The Soviet Union has emerged from all the storms
and ordeals a mighty world socialist Power.

Today a number of European and Asian countries whose
peoples have also overthrown bourgeois rule, are follow-
ing our country steadfastly along the path of socialist
construction. They have taken power into their hands and
confidently proceed along the road charted by Marxism-
Leninism.

The imperialists have frequently tried to intimidate us
with threats of war, with their military power. But we are
not easily frightened. We have firmly and steadfastly fol-
lowed our path and achieved historic victories. It is not
we who tremble, but the capitalist world, confronted as it
is by the new, growing and developing socialist world, by
those hundreds of millions of working people who have
taken power for good and shown all mankind how to live
without exploiters and exploitation. (Stormy applause.)

The gentlemen from bourgeois countries will never be
able to overthrow the power of the working people, which
has firmly established itself in the socialist countries. They

703

will never be able to recover what they have lost. Now it
is becoming increasingly clear that capitalist rule is ap-
proaching its end in other countries as well, and that cap-
italism, a system which has outlived its time, is doomed.
The future is ours. The future, comrades, belongs to Marx-
ism-Leninism, to communism! (Stormy applause.)

We are doing very well. We now have all we need to ad-
vance rapidly to our goal. The alliance of the working
class and the working peasantry, which has successfully
withstood all trials in forty years of socialist development,
is now strong as never before. The new intelligentsia, an
intelligentsia of the people, has grown up in the years of
Soviet power and is working heart and soul for the social-
ist cause, adding glory to Soviet science by its labour.
Only recently our enemies described our gifted people
haughtily as ignorant "muzhiks." They could not counte-
nance the thought, you see, that workers and peasants
could govern their country without landlords and capital-
ists and to develop science and culture. Yet now these
"muzhiks" have launched the world's first artificial earth
satellites, while they, the antagonists of the Soviet Union,
the antagonists of socialism, are petrified and their jaws
have dropped from astonishment at our successes. (Laugh-
ter, prolonged applause.)

Comrades, now many people come to us from the bour-
geois countries, and there are some among them who come
to snoop how soon Soviet power will topple. (Laughter.)
People known in the capitalist world as businessmen-
industrialists and capitalists— visit us as well. When
honest people see how much has been done in the
forty-one years of Soviet power, they acknowledge
the grandeur of what our people have created.
Others slander our country viciously. But already
they are much fewer. The majority are unable to
escape the facts and cannot help saying on their return
home that the Soviet Union they saw was not something
backward, but a country of vigorous and hard-working

704

people, a foremost technology, powerful plants, a rising
culture and a mounting living standard.

The Soviet people have worked with a will and are
reaping rich harvests from their great creative effort. The
difficult times when our country was poor and technically
backward are long over. You may recall that at one time
we looked upon the United States with envy, as if it were
something almost unattainable. Yet now the day is near
when we shall say: "Step aside, we are taking the lead,
and you can get behind and follow in our wake." (Laugh-
ter. Stormy applause.)

And that, comrades, is no empty boast, but our imme-
diate future, our tomorrow. Already now, our economists
are calculating pencil in hand when that day will come.
And our calculations are always very accurate and hardly
ever let us down. The first Land of the Soviets will be first
in per capita production. We shall have the highest living
standard. Our working class, our working people, are
sure to achieve it! (Loud cries: "Hurrah!" Stormy,
prolonged applause.)

Even today bourgeois propaganda is trying to frighten
the man in the street with communism. In doing so it re-
sorts, as is its custom, to shameless deceit and all sorts
of provocations. Sometimes it succeeds. There are still
those, even among honest men in the capitalist countries,
who fear communism. However, this is not surprising. The
older generation may recall that in the early years of Soviet
power in our country, the working people's enemies also
made up quite a few absurd fairy-tales about the Bolshe-
viks and the proletarian revolution. Their object was to
scare and confuse the ordinary people. But our Bolshevik
truth has conquered the hearts of men, and has won their
sympathies. The same will happen also in the other coun-
tries of the world.

After we raise our economy, culture, and the standard of
living to still higher levels, the ordinary people all over
the world will see for themselves that communism is a so-

705

cial system embodying all mankind's finest dreams for a
happy life. We live at a time when new millions and mil-
lions take their stand under the great banner of Marxism-
Leninism. (Applause.) _

Our principal weapon is Marxism-Leninism. We shall
defeat the capitalist world by using this powerful ideolog-
ical weapon rather than the hydrogen bomb. We produce
the hydrogen bomb with the sole object of cooling the
ambitions of some excessively zealous politicians and gen-
erals in the capitalist countries. {Laughter, applause.) Af-
ter all, living among wolves one must have the means to
let them know how dangerous it is for them to show their
fangs, (Laughter, applause.) We have no wish to attack
anyone. But we do not want to be simpletons who can be
taken barehanded. Now we cannot be taken with gloved
hands, let alone barehanded!- (Laughter. Stormy applause.)

The Soviet state, like all socialist countries, is a
peaceful state. We adhere steadfastly to the Leninist prin-
ciples of foreign policy. We stand firmly for peace, for the
prohibition of atomic weapons, for disarmament. We are
ready today to sign a treaty and end nuclear tests for all
time, but this must be done in good faith, with our Western
partners displaying as conscientious an approach as we
are to solving this problem.

However, the ruling circles of the Western Powers, par-
ticularly the United States, do not agree to that. Every-
body knows that the Soviet Government has unilaterally
discontinued nuclear tests and urged the Governments of
the United States and Britain to follow suit. When we de-
clared that we would do no more testing, they did not accept
our proposal and stepped up their tests. Months went by,
but the United States and Britain gave no thought to dis-
continuing tests of atomic and hydrogen bombs. Not to
be at a disadvantage, in an unequal position, we had no
other alternative but to resume our tests. And that was
what we did, attaining more powerful nuclear weapons. If
they go on making their tests, they better not think that

706

we shall be caught napping and wait until the imperial-
ists boost their strength against us. (Laughter, applause.)

Now there is talk about suspending nuclear tests for a
year, that is, for the time required by the United States and
Britain to sum up the results of their recent tests. A year
later they will again hold a series of nuclear weapons tests.
Is that an adequate solution to the issue? Of course, not.
We stand for ending tests of atomic and hydrogen weap-
ons for all time, for establishing appropriate control,
but the ruling circles of the United States and Britain
dojiot want that.

jWe have stated repeatedly that the controversy over
which system is better, socialism or capitalism, should
be settled by competition in peaceful endeavour rath-
er than by armed conflict. There always have been,
are, and will be ideological, class differences between so-
cialism and capitalism. But the socialist and capitalist
countries exist on the same planet and have to co-exist
peacefully. We say: Let us settle the existing differences
between socialism and capitalism by peaceful competition
rather than by unleashing war. If you, gentlemen, the
adherents of capitalism, say that your system is good and
strong, let that system reveal its superiority in peaceful
competition with the socialist system.

The ruling circles of countries which have enriched
themselves, and still enrich themselves, at the expense of
colonies, are not loath to brag about their countries having
a high standard of life. But their high standard of life
was achieved at the cost of millions of human lives, by
prostrating entire nations, and doing in millions and mil-
lions in the colonies by starvation.

Capitalism cannot exist without plundering the masses,
without oppression and exploitation. A handful of men
appropriate tremendous riches belonging to the people.
The imperialists have always enriched themselves, and
still enrich themselves, by plundering not only the peoples
of their own countries, but also the peoples of the colonies.

707

Now as before, imperialism continues to plunder many
peoples of Africa and Asia. But in recent times the peoples
in many countries have cast off the chains of colonialism
and won their national independence. Colonialism is today
splitting at the seams, j

Under socialism the oppression of one people by anoth-
er is unthinkable. Socialism has brought equality to all
nations. We in the Soviet Union have achieved striking
successes not on any funds received from abroad. It was
the working class, the working people of the Soviet Union,
who have created everything that is now the pride of our
people, that today amazes people abroad, with their own
labour', their own intellect. People abroad wonder how a
country could turn from a backward into an advanced
state in so short a time, and assume a leading place in
the world. Comrades, we owe this to our socialist system,
our Marxist-Leninist teaching. (Stormy applause.)

While capitalism plunges people into the slavery of
exploitation, into poverty, and deprives them of their
rights,! socialism brings a free, happy life to the people,
ensuring their all-round and rapid development. I have
said already that as a result of the triumphant October
Revolution the face of our country has changed. All coun-
tries that have taken the socialist path are developing
along the same lines.(This may be seen from the Polish
example. During Pilsudski's reign Poland was one of
Europe's backward countries. Today the Polish People's
Republic has a highly developed industry, and has scored
big successes in public education and the development of
science and culture. The Pilsudski clique is known to have
brought the Polish people to the brink of a national ca-
tastrophe by its inane policy of "sabre-rattling." The
present workers' and peasants' government of Poland
conducts a peaceful foreign policy in the interests of the
broad masses.

Our dear guests, Comrade Gomulka, the First Secretary
of the Central Committee of the Polish United Workers'

708

Party, Comrade Zawadski, Chairman of the State Council,
and Comrade Cyrankiewicz, Chairman of the Council of
Ministers, are our brothers. They think as we do, and do
everything in their power to strengthen their working
people's state and to further the friendship between our
countries, between our peoples and between the peoples of
all socialist countries and fight for world peace.

Comrades, our Polish friends are visiting us at a time
when the Soviet country is approaching the 41st anni-
versary of the October Revolution, which we shall cele-
brate in a few days. It is a big and good holiday! (Ap-
plause.)) Q)Yv^ck

We are summing up the results of the economic develop-
ment of the U.S.S.R. in 1958. In agriculture these results
have been exceedingly good. We have already procured
1,300 million poods more grain than last year. This means
that now we shall have grain enough to bake brown bread,
and white bread, and make pancakes, and dumplings, and
still have much left over for stock. (Laughter. Stormy ap-
plause.)

( N. S. Khrushchov goes on to say that the harvest of
sugar-beet has been very good in the current year, and
that this ensures a considerable increase in sugar output.
Marked successes have also been achieved in the produc-
tion of milk and meat.

"Do you have milk in Leningrad?" Khrushchov asked.

Voices: We do!

Khrushchov: Perhaps you don't want to let down your
leadership, or do you really have milk?

Voices: We do! We do! (Laughter, applause.) )

Khrushchov: Our industry is also doing much better
work. Considerable emphasis is being laid on developing
the chemical industry, which offers most excellent opportuni-
ties of increasing the output of consumer goods, so as to
satisfy in full the requirements of the population in high-
quality and cheap commodities:

709

There are also appreciable advances in housing con-
struction. More dwellings are going up. Are they now
building more in your city than before, comrades?
Voices: They are!

Khrushchov: I think that the task set by the Central
Committee— to solve the housing problem in ten to twelve
years— will be successfully accomplished!
Voices: Couldn't this term be reduced?
Khrushchov: That depends on you, on all our people.
What does it mean to reduce the fixed schedule of solving
the housing question? It means that as much as possible
steel, bricks, cement, reinforced concrete, and other mate-
rials' indispensable in building are to be produced in the
shortest possible time. And it is you, the workers, who
produce them. It isn't I who makes bricks and cement.
(Laughter.)

To reduce the schedule of solving the housing problem
fixed by the Party and the Government, we must work
better, raise the productivity of labour and produce more
cement, metal, timber, and other materials. This is what
has to be done, comrades! (Prolonged applause.)

N. S. Khrushchov turns to questions of international
politics and the struggle for peace. He replies at length to
questions asked by the workers. Then Comrade Khrusihchov
says:

Allow me, comrades, to conclude my speech by wishing
you new successes. I visited your plant some three years
ago. Now you have advanced far ahead. Three years ago
you were only making your first experiments of introducing
automatic shielding powder welding. While now this pro-
gressive method has been broadly introduced at your plant.
Automatic welding has a big future. You have mastered the
job begun by that remarkable scientist, a representative of
the old, pre-revolutionary intelligentsia, Academician
Paton. Automatic welding will enable us to achieve, still
greater successes in raising the productivity of labour.
* We must continue to improve the technology of produc-

710

tion; we must not be content with what we have today
and pick up new and progressive methods more boldly,
so that labour of Soviet workers becomes still more pro-
ductive.

The Soviet people are carrying out the task of overtaking
the United States in per capita production. And what does
that mean? It means that we must produce products need-
ed by man in greater quantities than any capitalist coun-
try. This is possible only if our workers, our engineers and
technicians, and our farmers attain the very highest pro-
ductivity of labour.

So we urge you, comrades, to raise still higher the level
of production, to raise still higher the productivity of
labour, so as to give our people the highest standard of
life. It is this that will enable us to draw near to communist
society.

Long live the workers of the Baltic Works, the workers
of fighting Petrograd, the workers of glorious Leningrad!

Long live the great Soviet people!

Long live the fraternal friendship of the peoples of the
socialist countries!

Long live the fraternal friendship of the peoples of the
Soviet Union and the Polish People's Republic! (Stormy,
prolonged applause. Cries: "Hurrah!")

SPEECH

AT SOVIET-POLISH FRIENDSHIP MEETING

OF LENINGRAD WORKING PEOPLE

November 4, 1958

Dear Comrades,

We have with great attention heard the splendid
speech of our dear friend Comrade Gomulka, who
spoke well about the friendship of the peoples of our
countries, about strengthening the unity of the socialist
countries in the fight for socialism and communism, for
securing the great gains of the working class, the work-
ing people of our countries, and for ensuring and strength-
ening world peace.

It may be said in all sincerity that the thoughts and sen-
timents voiced by Comrade Gomulka are also our thoughts
and sentiments. We are entirely of a single mind with him
both in assessing international developments and in ques-
tions concerning the further development of our countries,
which advance confidently along the road to socialism and
communism.

We have gathered here today to welcome heartily the
emissaries of the fraternal Polish people, the leaders of
socialist Poland.

This meeting of our dear Polish guests with you, the
citizens of Leningrad, has special significance. Leningrad
was the cradle of the Great October Socialist Revolution.
It was in Leningrad that the first historic decrees of the
young Soviet state were adopted, which have a tre-

712

mendous impact not only on the peoples of the Soviet
Union, but also on Poland, on all mankind.

In November 1917 the Soviet Government published the
Declaration of Rights of the Peoples of Russia, which pro-
claimed the right of the peoples of Russia to free self-de-
termination. The declaration applied equally to the Polish
people as well.

In August 1918 the Soviet Government reaffirmed by
special decree the inalienable right of the Polish people to
independent statehood. This historic act signed by Lenin,
said: "All treaties and agreements concluded by the gov-
ernment of the former Russian empire . . . concerning
partitions of Poland are hereby revoked for all
time, because they contradict the principle of the self-
determination of nations and the revolutionary sense of
justice of the Russian people, which recognizes the in-
alienable right of the Polish people to independence and
unity."

Fifteen treaties by which tsarism sought to perpetuate
the division of Poland were annulled at that time. It was
then that enduring foundations were laid for the re-emer-
gence of Polish statehood.

As far back as the eve of the first Russian revolution the
great Lenin pointed out that the Polish proletariat would
win its freedom only in close alliance with the Russian
working class. In his article, "The National Question in
Our Programme," he stressed that only the most complete
and closest alliance with the Russian proletariat would
meet the requirements of the then current political struggle
against autocracy and that only such an alliance would
guarantee the full political and economic liberation of the
working people of Poland. Lenin repeatedly elaborated
upon this proposition later too, particularly when in the
summer of 1912 he moved from Paris to Poland to be
nearer to Russia and guide the revolution which was then
maturing there.

713

The Polish working people have seen by their own ex-
perience how very right Lenin had been, who saw the guar-
antee of complete liberation for the Polish people in a close
alliance of the Polish working people with the Russian
working class. Under the impact of the Great October So-
cialist Revolution, the working people of Poland, headed
by the working class, waged a stubborn struggle for a
democratic Polish state. Soviets of Workers' Deputies
sprang up in Warsaw, Lodz, the Dombrowski coal basin
and other districts of Poland after Soviet Russia's example.
However, the forces of democracy in Poland were then
still weak and the working class insufficiently organized.
The Polish bourgeoisie and landlords took advantage of
this and with the support of the imperialist countries
seized power and established their own reactionary dicta-
torship.

But no brutalities, no exertions of the Polish reaction-
aries, could destroy what the Great October Socialist Rev-
olution had given Poland's working people. It inspired the
Polish working class to wage a determined revolutionary
struggle; it furnished experience, and showed the proper
road to liberation.

Comrades, forty-one years ago the salvoes of the Aurora
resounded here, in Leningrad. They served the entire Rus-
sian proletariat as a signal to storm the bourgeois-land-
lord system. They were heard throughout the world by our
class brothers, who perceived the beginning of the end of
capitalist slavery— the resplendent dawn of the new life —
in the triumph of Russia's working people.

Here, on the banks of the Neva, Soviet power was born.
Here the dictatorship of the proletariat triumphed and took
root for the first time in world history. In the years of
Soviet power our country developed into a mighty so-
cialist Power, blazing the trail to a new world— the world
of socialism. Today, a group of countries is already fol-
lowing this path. They are benefiting extensively by the
accumulated experience, and concurrently contribute much

714

of their own to socialist construction. But for all the great
abundance and diversity of political forms emerging in
the transition from capitalism to socialism, their sub-
stance, as Marx and Lenin had foreseen, is inevitably one —
the dictatorship of the proletariat. This dictatorship alone
can provide working-class political guidance to society. It
alone can ensure the steady advance of productive
forces, the burgeoning of real democracy for all working
people and a rise of living standards for the masses.

It is only natural that contemporary revisionists concen-
trate their main attacks against the dictatorship of the
proletariat, of which the alliance of the working class
and the peasantry under the leadership of the working
class is the supreme principle. They want thereby to strike
at the very heart of the working-class liberation move-
ment. With this in view, they vilify the dictatorship of
the proletariat in every possible way and contrast it with
democracy. To hear them, it appears that the dictatorship
of the proletariat is ultra-violence, suppression of all and
every freedom, oppression of the individual.

The dictatorship of the proletariat, it is true, involves
a certain amount of compulsion. But who is that compul-
sion aimed at? It is aimed at those who have for centuries
oppressed the people, who are reluctant to abandon their
privilege of plundering the toiler, who advocate restora-
tion of the old regime. Can the working people really
allow these idlers to recapture the mills and factories, the
best fields and forest-lands, and to harness the people into
the yoke of exploitation?

Suppressing the resistance of the exploiters is not the
only, and not even the main, function of the dictatorship
of the proletariat, the power of the working people. The
dictatorship of the proletariat performs a tremendous
organizational, educational and constructive job. This
facet of the functions of the socialist state is particularly
prominent today, when hundreds of millions of people
participate actively in the building of socialism and com-

715

munism. To the working people the dictatorship of the
proletariat in all its stages provides genuine democracy,
genuine popular rule.

The closer the people approach socialism, and then com-
munism, the more broadly and fully the advantages of
socialist democracy come to light. This is recognized not
only by our friends abroad, but also by those of our ene-
mies who are still able to look the truth squarely in the
face.

Not infrequently, the revisionists mask their acts against
the dictatorship of the proletariat with talk about the
specific features of one country or another. Yet they do
not, nor can they, cite a single example of successful so-
cialist construction without the dictatorship of the prole-
tariat. It is on the basis of proletarian dictatorship that
all the countries of the socialist camp are making splen-
did progress in building the new life.

The experience of some countries, the Polish People's
Republic among them, shows that in the new historical
circumstances the functions of the dictatorship of the pro-
letariat are adequately performed by state of people's
democracy. The Polish United Workers' Party, its Central
Committee headed by Comrade Gomulka, have firmly re-
buffed the revisionist elements who demanded that people's
democracy be supplanted as a form of proletarian dic-
tatorship by so-called "pure" democracy. But what is
"pure" democracy? Lenin said that "pure democracy"
was a spurious phrase used by liberals to fool the work-
ers. Behind a smoke-screen of high-sounding phrases
about "pure democracy" and "democratic socialism"
modern revisionists urge a return to bourgeois democracy
which, as you know, is nothing but a dictatorship of the
exploiting classes.

By preaching these views the revisionists want to dis-
arm the working class ideologically, and to sow in its
ranks the poisonous seeds of disbelief in its strength. It
is not accidental that international imperialist reaction

716

is extolling the revisionists to the skies and supporting
them. The Communist and Workers' parties have firmly
repelled the attacks of the modern revisionists and re-
vealed them in their true colours as traitors to the inter-
ests of the working class. The Communist and Workers'
parties will carry on their uncompromising struggle for the
purity of Marxist-Leninist theory and will cement the uni-
ty of their revolutionary ranks.

Comrades, the October Revolution has aroused the mil-
lions. It has wakened them to conscious creative effort.
By participating actively in the building of the new social
system, the masses mature politically and spiritually at
an unbelievably rapid rate.

Take our country, for example. The Soviet people dis-
play a model sense of duty and a selfless devotion to
building socialism and communism. This is universally
recognized. The achievements of the Soviet Union have
a magnetizing appeai for working people abroad. The
Soviet people have won the admiration of toilers in all
countries for their creative labour, their revolutionary
scope, their high sense of duty, unmatched tenacity and
self-sacrifice.

The Polish people are on the crest of a creative upsurge.
What they have done in their country in less than 15
years of free labour would have been impossible to
achieve under capitalism even in a hundred years.

The conscious creative effort of the masses, their high
devotion, is unusually strong in all the People's Democ-
racies— the Chinese People's Republic, Czechoslovakia,
Bulgaria, Rumania, Hungary, the German Democratic
Republic, Albania, the Mongolian People's Republic, the
Korean People's Democratic Republic and the Democratic
Republic of Viet-Nam. We live at a time, comrades, when
for the first time in history working people in vast terri-
tories have become free creators and masters of life. La-
bour in a non-exploiter society elevates and transforms
man.

717

Socialism and communism is being built by the entire
mass of working people. It is the daily labour at the mills
and factories, in the fields and the laboratories, that
advances history and brings our countries nearer to
socialism and communism.

Comrades, for centuries capitalism has sown discord
and enmity among nations. Socialism breeds so powerful
a force as fraternal international friendship. The fraternal
family of peoples who have taken the road of socialist
construction, has emerged and taken strength in a very
short historical time. A mighty socialist camp has emerged.
The Communist and Workers' parties have had their
work cut out clearing the ground for this community,
rooting out feelings of national discord and mistrust,
nurtured down the centuries by the exploiters.

There have been in the past many misunderstandings
and much unfriendliness, and even military conflicts, be-
tween Russia and Poland. Yet, even in the past, this was
not the principal feature of the relations between the
peoples of our countries. Indeed, what was there to quar-
rel over for our peoples at the time of the tsarist autocra-
cy? Nothing at all. They were oppressed and rightless. On
the contrary, they had much in common, and chiefly the
joint struggle for social liberation. We all know that the
Polish working class actively supported the revolutionary
struggle of the proletariat and all the working people of
Russia both in the 1905 revolution and 1917. The great
Lenin thought highly of the revolutionary manifestations
of Warsaw and Lodz workers in 1905. The Soviet people
remember very well how resolutely the working people of
Poland supported the young Soviet Republic, how they
fought against the Polish capitalists and landlords, who
had plunged Poland into a war against Soviet Russia at the
bidding of Western imperialists. The glorious "Red Reg-
iment" formed by Polish revolutionary soldiers, greeted
heartily by Lenin before departing to the front, is
remembered in our country.

718

The Soviet people gratefully received and highly valued
the mass manifestations of the Polish proletariat in sup-
port of the Soviet Union whenever the imperialists tried to
obstruct the peaceful socialist development of our country
and threatened it with armed provocations. For their part,
the Soviet people have always enthusiastically supported
the revolutionary struggle of the Polish working class,
headed by the Communist Party of Poland.

During the Second World War the peoples of our coun-
tries fought together against the Nazi invaders. Crushing
the fascist armies and advancing westward, the heroic
Soviet Army, hand in hand with units of the Polish Army
and with Polish partisans, drove the enemy out of Polish
territory.

After the triumph of people's democracy in Poland rela-
tions of close friendship and fraternal co-operation have
developed between our countries. Helping each other, our
peoples are working confidently for their great and cher-
ished goal — socialism and communism.

Fraternal relations between Poland and the Soviet
Union, and between all the socialist countries, develop on
the basis of the immortal ideas of Leninism, the princi-
ples of proletarian internationalism. The Polish and So-
viet peoples know full well that if there is no friendship
between Poland and the Soviet Union, it is our common
enemies alone who stand to gain therefrom. I said so this
spring in replying to questions put by the editors of
Trybuna Ludu, and I say so now. The peoples of Poland
and the Soviet Union realize that the closer and stronger
their friendship and that of all the socialist countries, the
more impregnable they will be in the face of any enemy,
and the more enduring world peace will be. The alliance
and friendship of Poland and the Soviet Union accords
with the vital interests of our fraternal peoples, the in-
terests of all the peoples of the socialist camp.

Our Party does its best to further and strengthen
Polish-Soviet friendship. We note with deep satisfaction

719

that the Polish United Workers' Party is giving a fitting
rebuff to the attempts to sow discord and mistrust be-
tween the peoples of our countries.

In his report to the 12th Plenary Meeting of the Cen-
tral Committee of the PUWP, Comrade Gomulka said that
the Polish United Workers' Party "has prevented Poland
from being led along a fatal path, which the revisionist
'correctors' and all enemies of socialism tried so hard to
do. Their attempts to drive a wedge into the alliance and
into Polish-Soviet friendship have failed."

The friendship of People's Poland and the Soviet Union
is a powerful factor of peace in Europe and the entire
world. In the past the imperialists made Poland a pawn
in their political gambles and sought to turn her into a
beach-head for an attack upon the Soviet Union. People's
Poland has become a genuinely independent, sovereign
state. Together with the Soviet Union and the other so-
cialist countries it holds high the banner of peace.

Comrades, the Soviet people rejoice at the successes of
socialist Poland, of her gifted and hard-working people.
The gains of socialism in Poland add very greatly to the
might of the entire socialist camp, the forces of peace and
progress. From the bottom of their heart, all Soviet people
wish Poland's working people new outstanding successes
in building socialism.

This meeting with our Polish friends takes place on the
eve of the 41st anniversary of the Great October Socialist
Revolution. Permit me, comrades, citizens of Leningrad,
on behalf of the Central Committee of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Government to
congratulate you on the coming holiday and to wish you
fresh successes in labour and life.

We live in a remarkable time when historical develop-
ment leads inevitably to the final triumph of socialism
and communism throughout the world. From a dream so-
cialism has turned in our day into a great and unconquer-

720

able world force which astonishes mankind with its
magnificent victories.

Long live the great socialist camp!

Long five the fraternal Polish people!

Long live the Polish United Workers' Party and its
Central Committee headed by Comrade Gomulka!

Long live Marxism-Leninism!

Long live world peace!

(N. S. Khrushchov's speech was repeatedly interrupted
by prolonged applause.)

SPEECH
AT GRAND KREMLIN PALACE RECEPTION
IN HONOUR OF 41st ANNIVERSARY
OF THE GREAT OCTOBER SOCIALIST REVOLUTION

November 7, 1958

Dear Comrades and Friends,

Our dear Guests from abroad,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We are gathered here to mark a national holiday ot
the Soviet Union— the 41st anniversary of the Great Octo-
ber Socialist Revolution. Permit me, in the name of the
Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union, the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R., the Pre-
sidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., to greet
all those assembled in this hall— representatives of the
Soviet public as well as foreign guests who have come
to celebrate the 41st anniversary of the October Revolu-

We warmly greet the representatives of the fraternal
Polish people— the delegation of the Polish People's Re-
public headed by Comrade Gomulka who are celebrating
with us in Moscow the anniversary of the October Social-
ist Revolution.

November 7 is the brightest and most joyful holiday in
the history of the Soviet people. Forty-one years ago, the
working class of Russia in alliance with the working peas-
ants under the leadership of the Communist Party headed
by our leader and teacher Vladimir Ilyich Lenin carried
out the great revolution. The power of the bourgeoisie and

722

landowners was overthrown, and Soviet power, the rule of
the workers and peasants, was firmly established in our
country.

There has never been an event in world history that has
exerted as great an influence on the destinies of nations
as the October Revolution. It marked the transition from
the capitalist system of exploitation to a new, socialist
system. The ideas of the Great October Socialist Revolu-
tion inspire the working people of the entire world to
struggle against social and national oppression, for peace,
democracy and socialism.

Our country has travelled a great and glorious path
in the 41 years of Soviet power. The Soviet people, ral-
lied round the Communist Party, have built socialism,
have made tremendous economic and cultural progress,
have effected magnificent transformations. The standard
of living of the working people is rising year by year.

The Soviet Union's achievements are well known. Com-
rade Mikoyan spoke of them in detail in his report yes-
terday.

The camp of the socialist states, which is growing and
becoming stronger, is an embodiment of the ideas of the
October Socialist Revolution. Today the Soviet Union,
the Chinese People's Republic, Czechoslovakia, Poland,
Bulgaria, Rumania, Hungary, the German Democratic
Republic, Albania, the Mongolian People's Republic, the
Korean People's Democratic Republic and the Democratic
Republic of Viet-Nam are advancing in a united front
towards the great aim— communism. The co-operation
and mutual assistance between our countries are steadi-
ly gaining in strength and scope.

Even our outspoken ill-wishers, who earlier did not
believe in the forces of socialism and ridiculed our plans,
are now no longer able to deny the gigantic successes of
the Soviet Union and all the countries of the socialist camp.

The advance in the economy of the Soviet Union and all
socialist countries and the rise in the standard of living

723

of our peoples provide conclusive proof of the advantages
of socialism over capitalism. The successes of the Soviet
Union and the other socialist countries strengthen the in-
fluence of the ideas of socialism on the working people
qf the capitalist, dependent and colonial countries.
' The imperialists are afraid of the growing strength of
the Soviet Union, of the world socialist camp. In speeches
by many politicians and statesmen of the West and in
the bourgeois press one comes more and more often
across expressions of open fear that the Soviet Union is
capable of economically outstripping the most highly
developed capitalist countries^

We firmly believe that the time is not far distant when
the Soviet Union will take first place in the world both
in total output as well as per capita production, which
will secure for our peoples the highest standard of living
in the world.

We do not' need war. Peace is indispensable for the
building of communist society. The general line of our
foreign policy is the line of peaceful co-existence, of estab-
lishing friendly relations among all peoples. That is why
the Soviet Government is steadily striving to further im-
prove relations with all countries and is persistently
working to consolidate world peace.

The imperialists are trying hard to turn back the wheel
of history, they are seeking to preserve and extend the
sphere of capitalist exploitation and colonial oppression,
to reimpose their yoke upon the peoples who have achieved
national liberation. That is precisely why the ruling-
circles of the United States and some other countries are
pursuing a "positions of strength" policy in international
relations, and are meeting with hostility any Soviet pro-
posal aimed at easing international tension and
strengthening peace.

Such a policy, however, arouses increasing dissatisfac-
tion among the peoples of all countries, including the
American people. Surely this is borne out by the elections

724

to the Senate and the House of Representatives just held
in the United States. Of course, elections are an internal
affair of each state, of each people, and no one may inter-
fere in such matters. But the American electors have al-
ready had their say. We are pleased that the people of the
United States condemn the policy of "brinkmanship" and
"positions of strength," carried out by the Secretary of
State, Mr. Dulles, and supported by the President,
Mr. Eisenhower.

The peoples of the Soviet Union are championing
peace. The Soviet Government, in its relations with non-so-
cialist countries, firmly adheres to the well-known Five
Principles: mutual respect for territorial integrity and
sovereignty, non-aggression, non-intervention in one
another's internal affairs, equality and mutual, benefit,
peaceful co-existence and economic co-operation.

The ruling circles of the United States obstinately reject
all the peace efforts of the Soviet Union, they do not
want peaceful co-existence among states.
( And although we understand that the Republican and
the Democratic parties differ little in their foreign policy,
we regard the United States election returns from the
viewpoint of the possibility of improving relations between
our countries.

We hope that the results of the elections, which showed
the dissatisfaction of the American electorate with the
present foreign policy of the U.S. Administration, will
lead to essential changes, to an end of the cold war and
the discontinuance of the short-sighted policy of "brink-
manship."

It is high time for all to recognize that the Soviet
Union, the Chinese People's Republic and all the other
countries of socialism are a reality. This reality must be
recognized and a policy must be pursued which takes
into account the existence of the socialist countries.

In our time the forces of peace have developed and
strengthened. The instigators of international conflicts

725

and military provocations are opposed by the front of the
peaceful socialist states and the other independent coun-
tries standing for peace. All the peoples are striving for
the maintenance of peace and are working for it. The
forces of peace, provided they are organized and vigilant,
are capable of curbing the imperialist aggressors.

Comrades, we are celebrating our holiday at the time of
a fresh powerful upsurge when all Soviet people are pre-
paring worthily to meet the 21st Congress of the Commun-
ist Party of the Soviet Union, the congress of builders of
communism. This congress will outline a new programme
for the large-scale building of communist society, to en-
sure a further sharp rise in all branches of the economy
and on this basis to bring about another substantial ad-
vance iii the standard of living of the people.
-"Long' live our great socialist homeland, confidently
advancing towards communism!'

Long live the 41st anniversary of the October Socialist
Revolution, whose great ideas are inspiring all progres-
sive mankind!
— Glory to our great Soviet people!

Allow me to propose a toast to lasting peace and
friendship among all the peoples of the world. -

To the good health of our esteemed guests!

(N. S. Khrushchov's speech was heard with great at-
tention and was repeatedly greeted with hearty applause.)

■I

SPEECH

AT FRIENDSHIP MEETING

OF POLISH PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC

AND THE SOVIET UNION

November 10, 1958

Dear Polish Friends,

Dear Comrades,

We have gathered here today to welcome cordially our
dear guests: Wladyslaw Gomulka, First Secretary of the
Central Committee of the Polish United Workers' Party
(applause), Alexander Zawadski, member of the Political
Bureau of the Central Committee of the Party and Chair-
man of the State Council of the Polish People's Republic
(applause), Jozef Cyrankiewicz, member of the Political
Bureau and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the
Polish People's Republic (applause), Jerzy Morawski,
member of the Political Bureau and Secretary of the Cen-
tral Committee (applause); representatives of the parties
of the People's Unity Front — Stefan Ignar, Chairman of
the Chief Committee of the United Peasant Party and
Vice-Chairman of the Council of Ministers (applause),
Stanislaw Kulczynski, Chairman of the Central Committee
of the Democratic Party and Vice-President of the State
Council (applause), Edward Gierek, Secretary of the Cen-
tral Committee and First Secretary of the Katowice Voi-
vodoship Committee of the Polish United Workers' Party
(applause), Tadeusz Galinski, Minister of Culture and
Arts (applause), Marian Naszkowski, member of the Cen-
tral Committee of the Polish United Workers' Party and

727

Deputy Foreign Minister (applause), Michalina Tatar-
kowna, member of the Central Committee and First Sec-
retary of the Lodz City Committee of the Polish United
Workers' Party (applause), and Tadeusz Gede, member of
the Central Committee of the Polish United Workers'
Party and Polish Ambassador to the U.S.S.R.

The visit of the delegation of the Polish People's Re-
public to the Soviet Union, your tour of our country, dear
friends, turned into a moving demonstration of fraternal
Soviet-Polish friendship.

You visited Moscow, Leningrad, Tbilisi, Kiev and Minsk,
and met workers and collective farmers, and people en-
gaged in science and cultural work, Party and government
workers. Everywhere you were received as true friends.
During your tour of our country you were able to see for
yourselves once more the sincere and profound fraternal
feelings which the Soviet people have for the Polish
people. (Prolonged applause.)

The roots of our people's friendship go far into the past.
The ruling classes of Russia and Poland— the landed gen-
try and capitalists— tried hard to sow discord between
our peoples, to incite mutual enmity among them. The
tsarist policy of oppressing and subjugating Poland has
left bitter memories among the Polish people. No less
bitter are the memories of Ukrainians and Byelorussians
of the dark years under the rule of Polish barons. In the
past there was strife and misunderstanding, conflicts and
clashes between our countries.

But against all barriers and obstacles, the great idea
of friendship was making its way into the hearts of our
peoples. It was born and grew stronger in the joint up-
risings of the Polish and Russian peasants, it found ex-
pression in the creative friendship of the great poets of
our peoples — Pushkin and Mickiewicz. It found expres-
sion in the utterances of Revolutionary Democrats. The
working class, the most progressive, the most revolution-
ary class of our epoch, the consistent champion of the

728

concepts of internationalism and brotherhood of peoples,
became the true standard-bearer of this friendship. (Ap-
plause.)

Soviet-Polish friendship is illumined by the immortal
ideas of the great leader of the working people of the
world, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, who also conducted his
titanic revolutionary work on the territory of Poland,
eloquently evidenced by the places associated with the
memory of Lenin in Cracow and Poronino which are
sacredly revered and preserved by the working people of
People's Poland. (Applause.)

The proletarian revolutionaries of Russia and Poland
always advocated the united struggle of the Polish and
Russian proletariat, realizing that the independence of
Poland was impossible without the freedom of Russia.
Many Polish workers, peasants and soldiers took an ac-
tive part in the Great October Socialist Revolution, in the
struggle against the enemies of Soviet power.

A vivid personification of collaboration in the fight of
the Polish and Russian working-class movement was the
outstanding revolutionary, Felix Dzerzhinsky, who was
one of Lenin's closest companions in arms. (Prolonged
applause.) The Soviet people will always remember with
love and admiration this great son of the Polish people
who combined a passionate love for the working people
with hatred for the oppressors.

The revolutionary traditions of the Polish labour move-
ment were inherited and continued by the glorious Com-
munist Party of Poland, the 40th anniversary of which
falls due in December, this year. (Applause.) In the most
difficult conditions of the fascist regime established by
Pilsudski's supporters, the Communist Party of Poland
led the struggle of the Polish workers and peasants against
the exploiters, defended the principles of proletarian
internationalism, educated the mass of the working people
in the spirit of utmost support for the heroic struggle of
the peoples of the Soviet Union.

729

Our Party highly appreciates the revolutionary services
of the Communist Party of Poland, its selfless struggle for
the victory of the great Marxist-Leninist ideas in the
Polish labour movement. In the difficult years of the
Second World War, the Polish Workers' Party became the
continuer of the revolutionary struggle of the Communist
Party of Poland. (Applause.) It was the leading force of
the Polish working people in the struggle for the libera-
tion of the country from the Nazi yoke, for the victory of
the people's democratic system, for radical social and
economic reforms in the country.

The leading role of the Polish working class has be-
come even greater since the closing of the rift in the labour
movement in the country, a fact which was of paramount
significance for the further development of People's
Poland. As a result of the merger of the Polish Workers'
Party and the Polish Socialist Party on the basis of the
ideological and organizational principles of Marxism-
Leninism, a single party of the working class was formed
—the Polish United Workers' Party, which rallied the peo-
ple for the accomplishment of the great tasks of building
a new, socialist society. (Prolonged applause.)

The achievements of People's Poland are great, and all
her friends rejoice sincerely in them. In place of the old,
economically weak bourgeois-landlord Poland which was
a pawn in the hands of the big imperialist Powers, a new,
truly independent state, a People's Democracy, has been
established. Poland's socialist economy is growing and
the well-being and cultural standards of her people are
improving.

The Polish people have regained their ancient western
lands and have obtained broad access to the Baltic. For
the first time in history Poland has friendly states for
neighbours— the Soviet Union, the Czechoslovak Republic
and the German Democratic Republic, (Applause.)

The achievements of People's Poland are all the more
significant in that they have been secured despite grave

730

hardships. To build a socialist society is a noble, but also
a difficult and complicated task. It is only natural for
difficulties to arise in the process of a radical break-up of
old relations and the building of a new society, in the
course of socialist construction, and mistakes are bound
to be made. But we Communists, as builders of a new life,
should be able to see the main, the most essential, feature in
every phenomenon. And the main thing in Poland's devel-
opment in the years of people's power is undeniably the
big achievements in the Polish people's economic and
cultural life.

Friendship and fraternal co-operation have become the
foundation of our relations since the establishment of the
system of people's democracy in Poland. It is known that
the imperialists gambled in staking their hopes on various
nationalists and revisionists. They cherished the hope of
setting our countries at loggerheads and wresting Peo-
ple's Poland away from the socialist camp. But these in-
sidious designs have failed ingloriously. {Stormy ap-
plause.)

And it could not be otherwise, comrades. The experi-
ence of the Soviet Union's relations with Poland and
other socialist states offers convincing evidence that there
are no issues between our countries, nor can there be
any, that cannot be settled amicably. (Applause.)

The nearer our cherished goal, communism, the firmer
becomes the co-operation of the socialist countries. With
the triumph of socialist relations in the economic sphere
and with the growth of communist consciousness national
mistrust is being increasingly overcome and the bonds
of international friendship are growing stronger. More-
over, the unity of the socialist camp is one of the basic
and decisive conditions for the successful advancement of
every socialist country along the road to building a new
life.

Comrades, a new balance of forces has developed in the
world today. The mighty socialist camp is growing and

731

gaining in strength and nothing can arrest the peoples'
advance toward socialism and communism. (Stormy ap-
plause.) Therefore, the attempts of the forces of reaction
to prevent the building of socialism in the People's De-
mocracies are doomed to failure.

It is high time for Messrs. Imperialists to realize that
the remnants of the reactionary forces in the People's
Democracies have no genuine support among the people.
In all the People's Democracies the leading role of the
working class has become more prominent. The labouring
peasantry is in close alliance with it. The intelligentsia is
working for the welfare of the people and serves them
honestly.

The fact that the balance of forces in the world today
is in favour of socialism reduces to hopelessness the im-
perialist ambitions of restoring the old order of things in
the socialist countries. Only incorrigible adventurists can
dream of this today. The social gains of the working
people in every socialist country are guarded by the might
of the entire socialist camp. (Prolonged applause.)

Fortunately for mankind, the course of international
developments today does not depend entirely on the will
of the ruling circles of the imperialist Powers. Experience
shows that the international prestige of the countries of
the socialist camp, and its influence on the entire flow of
world history and the destinies of mankind are growing
year by year. In recent years the world has time and
again been spared from catastrophic explosions that
threatened to touch off a new world conflagration. This
has been made possible primarily by the solidarity of the
socialist countries, the consistency of their peace policy,
and the determination of all the peoples to uphold world
peace.

Why are the political and military leaders of certain
Western Powers subject to paroxysms of war hysteria?
It is because big capital, the monopoly owners, need a
tense international situation constantly to intensify the

732

arms race and to enrich themselves at the expense of the
working people. Therein lies the main reason for the ever
new gambles which the imperialist circles, disregarding
realities, undertake. They are hoping thereby to keep
mankind constantly on the brink of war, to receive huge
super-profits, to subjugate countries which have commit-
ted themselves to aggressive military blocs.

The imperialists have turned the German question into
an abiding source of international tension. The ruling
circles of West Germany are doing everything to whip up
military passions against the German Democratic Repub-
lic, against the Polish People's Republic, against all the
socialist countries. Speeches by Chancellor Adenauer and
Defence Minister Strauss, the arming of the Bundeswehr
with nuclear weapons and various military manoeuvres
all bespeak a definite trend in the policy of the ruling
circles of West Germany.

We wish to warn the leaders of the Federal Republic
of Germany: The road followed by West Germany today
is a road dangerous to peace in Europe and fatal to West
Germany herself. Indeed, can realistic politicians today
hope for success in a new "march to the East"? Hitler in
his time also did everything to fan war hysteria, in order
to prepare the ground for an attack on the Soviet Union.
However, it is well known how this all ended. It is not
hard to imagine the fate of those who would try to un-
leash new aggression against the socialist states. No
speeches by Chancellor Adenauer or his Minister Strauss
can change the balance of forces in favour of imperialism.
To march against the East would mean marching to
death for West Germany. (Stormy applause.)

It is high time to realize that the times when imperi-
alists could act from "positions of strength" with impun-
ity have gone never to return, and try as they may, the
imperialists will not be able to change the balance of
forces in their favour. Nor should they forget the geograph-
ical position of West Germany which — with means of

733

warfare what they are today— would not survive a single
day of modern warfare. (Prolonged applause.)

We do not desire another military conflict. It would be
fatal to West Germany and would bring untold disaster
to the peoples of other countries. The Soviet Union and
the other socialist countries are doing everything to keep
the adventurists who are dreaming of new wars from
making a fatal step. The West German policy-makers
would do well to appraise the existing situation more so-
berly and desist from whipping up war passions.

The Western press today says much about the Govern-
ment of the Federal Republic of Germany planning to
approach the Soviet Union, the United States of America,
Britain and France with a proposal to call a new Four-
Power meeting to settle for the Germans, and without the
participation of the Germans, the question of unifying
their country. But this is nothing but a continuation of
the old, unrealistic policy which is contrary to common
sense and devoid of legal justification. No Powers have
the right to interfere in the internal affairs of the German
Democratic Republic and to dictate their will to it, {Ap-
plause.)

We quite understand the German people's natural
yearning for the restoration of their national unity. But
German militarists and their American patrons are using
these profound national sentiments for purposes that have
nothing to do either with the reunification of Germany or
with ensuring a lasting peace in Europe. West German
militaristic circles are in fact following a course of deep-
ening the cleavage of the country and preparing military
adventures.

If the West German Government really wanted reuni-
fication, it would have followed the only way leading to
this, the way of establishing contacts with the Govern-
ment of the German Democratic Republic, the way of
agreement that would suit both the German Democratic
Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany.

734

The German question, in the sense of reunification of
the two German states now in existence, can only be set-
tled by the German people themselves along the lines of
rapprochement between these states. The conclusion of a
peace treaty with Germany is an entirely different mat-
ter which, indeed, should be settled primarily by the Four
Powers which formed the anti-Hitler coalition, in co-oper-
ation with representatives of Germany. The signing of a
peace treaty with Germany would help to normalize the
entire situation in Germany and in Europe generally. The
Soviet Union has proposed, and is proposing, that this
measure should be tackled without delay.

If one is to discuss the Four Powers' undertakings with
regard to Germany, one must consider the obligations
springing from the Potsdam Agreement.

Let us recall the main obligations assumed by the par-
ties to the Potsdam Agreement with regard to their policy
in Germany, what course of development for Germany
was determined in Potsdam.

At that time, the members of the anti-Hitler coalition
assumed clear-cut and definite obligations: to extirpate
German militarism, to prevent its resurgence once and for
all, to do everything to prevent Germany from ever again
threatening her neighbours or world peace.

The parties to the Potsdam Agreement also recognized
the necessity for putting an end to German fascism, block-
ing its revival in Germany, and curbing all fascist ac-
tivities and propaganda.

Another important integral part of the Potsdam Agree-
ment was the commitment to liquidate the rule of the car-
tels, syndicates and other monopolies in the German econ-
omy, that is, forces that had brought Hitler to power and
had encouraged and financed his military ventures. Such
is the substance of the agreements concluded in Potsdam
in 1945.

And what do we have today, more than 13 years after
the Potsdam Conference?

735

No one can deny that the Soviet Union, on its part, has
scrupulously observed all these agreements and that they
have been carried out in full in the eastern part of Ger-
many, the German Democratic Republic. Let us see how
the Potsdam Agreement is being carried out in the west-
ern part of Germany, in the Federal Republic of Germany,
the responsibility for whose development rests with the
three Western Powers— the United States, Britain and
France.

It should be openly said that militarism, far from
having been eradicated, is rearing its head ever higher in
West Germany. The Powers which should have fought
against the resurgence of German militarism have drawn
West Germany into the aggressive military bloc of NATO
that they have created. They are doing everything to pro-
mote the growth of German militarism and the establish-
ment in West Germany of a mass army equipped with
the latest weapons.

By decision of the Government of the Federal Republic
of Germany, and, of course, with the approval of the
NATO Powers, West Germany is building an army which
the German militarists envisage as stronger than the
armies of Britain and France. It is, perhaps, already
stronger than the French army, in view of the fact that
a substantial part of the French army is maintained out-
side the country in the colonies, where the liberation move-
ment against the French colonialists is at the boiling
point.

The armed forces that are being re-created in West
Germany are again headed by Nazi generals and admir-
als. The West German army is being trained in the pred-
atory spirit of the Nazi Wehrmacht, in the spirit of
revanche and hatred for the Soviet Union and other
peaceful states.

Moreover, the German militarists — with the blessing of
the Western Powers, and primarily the United States —
are receiving nuclear weapons. The Federal Republic

736

already has American rockets which carl be fitted with
nuclear war-heads.

Economically, West Germany is literally grasping her
West European allies by the throat. It is enough to note,
for the sake of comparison, that in 1957, for instance, the
Federal Republic produced 24,500,000 tons of steel, as
against 22,000,000 in Britain and little more than
14,000,000 in France.

West Germany is today also financially stronger than
either Britain or France. Consider their gold and currency
reserves, for instance. According to official figures, West
Germany's reserves amounted to over $5,600 million at
the end of 1957, as compared with Britain's $2,370 mil-
lion and France's $775 million. All these economic re-
sources of West Germany are being placed at the service of
reviving German imperialism.

No matter which basic provisions of the Potsdam Agree-
ment concerning the demilitarization of Germany and
prevention of the resurgence of fascism we may consider,
we shall inevitably arrive at the conclusion that these pro-
visions, bearing the signatures of the United States, Britain
and France, have been violated by them.

What then is left of the Potsdam Agreement?

One thing, in effect: The so-called Four-Power status of
Berlin, that is, a position providing the three Western
Powers— the United States, Britain and France— with the
possibility of lording it in West Berlin, turning that part
of the city, which is the capital of the German Democratic
Republic, into a kind of state within a state and profiting
by this to conduct subversive activities from West Ber-
lin against the German Democratic Republic, the Soviet
Union and the other Warsaw Treaty countries. On top of
all this, they make use of the right of unrestricted com-
munication between West Berlin and West Germany via
the air space, railways, highways and waterways of the
German Democratic Republic, a state which they do not
even deign to recognize.

737

The question arises: Who stands to benefit from this
situation and why have the United States, France and
Britain not violated this part of the quadripartite agree-
ment as well? The answer is clear: They have no inten-
tion of violating this part of the Potsdam Agreement. On
the contrary, they cling to it, for the agreement on Berlin
is advantageous to the Western Powers, and only them.
The Western Powers, of course, would not be averse to
perpetuating such "interallied" privileges for ever, even
though they have long destroyed the legal basis for their
presence in Berlin. (Applause.)

Is it not time for us to draw appropriate conclusions
from the fact that the key items of the Potsdam Agree-
ment concerning the maintenance of peace in Europe and,
consequently, throughout the world, have been violated
and that certain forces continue to nurture German mili-
tarism, strongly encouraging it in the direction in which
it was pushed before the Second World War, that is,
towards the East? Is it not time for us to reconsider our
attitude to this part of the Potsdam Agreement and to
repudiate it? (Prolonged applause.)

The time has obviously arrived for the signatories of
the Potsdam Agreement to discard the remnants of the
occupation regime in Berlin and thereby make it possible
to create a normal situation in the capital of the German
Democratic Republic. The Soviet Union, on its part, would
hand over to the sovereign German Democratic Republic
the functions in Berlin that are still exercised by Soviet
agencies. This, I think, would be the correct thing to do.
(Applause.)

Let the United States, France and Britain themselves
build their relations with the German Democratic Repub-
lic, let them reach agreement with it themselves if they
are interested in any questions concerning Berlin. As for
the Soviet Union, we shall sacredly honour our obliga-
tions as an ally of the German Democratic Republic —
obligations which stem from the Warsaw Treaty and

738

which we have repeatedly reaffirmed to the German
Democratic Republic. (Prolonged applause.)

If any forces of aggression attack the German Dem-
ocratic Republic, which is a full-fledged member of the
Warsaw Treaty, we shall regard this as an attack on the
Soviet Union, on all the Warsaw Treaty countries. (Stor-
my, prolonged applause.) We shall then rise to the de-
fence of the German Democratic Republic, and this will
signify the defence of the vital security interests of the
Soviet Union, of the entire socialist camp, and of the
cause of world peace. (Stormy, prolonged applause.)

The Western Powers which, at one time, signed the
Potsdam Agreement are today working to aggravate the
international situation, to encourage the growing milita-
rist tendencies of German revenge-seekers, that is, they
support all that the Potsdam Agreement denounced. They
have long since been guided by the aggressive North
Atlantic Treaty and not by the Potsdam Agreement.

They have violated the Potsdam Agreement repeatedly
and with impunity, while we remain faithful to it as if
nothing had changed. We have every reason to free our-
selves from such outlived obligations under the Potsdam
Agreement which the Western Powers are clinging to, and
to pursue a policy with regard to Berlin that would spring
from the interests of the Warsaw Treaty.

The leaders of West Germany say that good relations
between the Soviet Union and the Federal Republic of
Germany can only be established if the Soviet Union
ceases to support the German Democratic Republic and
if it brings pressure to bear on it along lines required by
the West. Bonn does not, apparently, desire good rela-
tions with the Soviet Union if it entertains such absurd
hopes. If the Government of the Federal Republic really
wants to have good relations with the Soviet Union it
should abandon, once and for all, the hope that we shall
cease to support the German Democratic Republic. (Pro-
longed applause.)

739

The Government of the Polish People's Republic has
shown valuable initiative in proposing the establishment
in Central Europe of a zone where atomic, hydrogen and
rocket weapons would not be manufactured or stockpiled.
This constructive proposal has been supported by the Gov-
ernments of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, the German
Democratic Republic and other socialist and non-social-
ist countries which firmly stand for the preservation of
peace. The ruling circles of West Germany, however, have
turned down the Polish proposal and have taken to equip-
ping the Bundeswehr with atomic and rocket weapons.
German militarism today is more dangerous to the world
than before. German militarists hope to swallow the Ger-
man Democratic Republic and to take away from Poland
her ancient western lands. They lay claims to the territory
of Czechoslovakia and other socialist countries.

But they are playing with fire. The Oder-Neisse fron-
tier is a frontier of peace. {Prolonged applause.) Any en-
croachment by German revenge-seekers on the German
Democratic Republic would be regarded as an encroach-
ment on the Oder-Neisse frontier, as a threat to the secu-
rity of our peoples. {Stormy applause.)

The Polish people can rest assured that in the Soviet
Union they have a reliable friend and ally in the struggle
against German militarism and imperialist aggression.
{Stormy, prolonged applause.)

I would like to say a few words about our relations
with some of our neighbours. You have read the Soviet
Government's statement to the Government of Iran, pub-
lished several days ago. We made this statement because
Iran is being increasingly drawn into the aggressive
NATO bloc and because the threat has arisen lately of
her territory being turned into an actual place d'armes
of the American military.

We would not like to believe that the Iranian Govern-
ment and the Shah of Iran personally would take this
dangerous road. We hope that a sober appraisal of all

740

the dangers involved for Iran in such a foreign policy will
prevail, and that the Iranian leaders will not follow in
the wake of outside forces to which the interests of Ira-
nian security are really foreign.

It is well known that the Soviet Union has not threat-
ened and does not threaten anyone. This applies in full
to our neighbours, including Iran, whose independence we
respect and shall continue to respect. We do not seek to
maintain military bases on her territory and, indeed, we
would not agree to this even if we were invited to have
such bases on the territory of Iran.

One may ask: How, under these circumstances, should
one regard the actions designed to turn Iran into an
American spring-board, in particular through the
conclusion of a new military treaty with the United States
—the aims of which, by the way, those who press for the
conclusion of the treaty make no effort to conceal? We
regard it, and shall regard it, as an act hostile to our
country, with all the attendant consequences.

No neighbour of the Soviet Union, whether Iran or
any other country, would place its territory at the disposal
of the aggressive NATO grouping if it had the good in-
tention of strengthening good-neighbour co-operation
with the Soviet Union. If it does take such a step, it
means that it will be committing an aggressive act
against the U.S.S.R.

We sincerely hope that the Iranian Government will not
nullify everything good done in the recent past by both
countries to adjust relations between them and will not
invite calamity upon its country.

Comrades, the socialist camp is a mighty stronghold
of world peace. Its peace policy, the policy of friendship
and co-operation, conforms to the fundamental interests
of all peoples. The source of strength and power of the
socialist camp is the unity and solidarity of the countries
belonging to it. (Applause.) Any attempts to weaken and

741

undermine this unity play into the hands of the enemies
of peace and socialism.

Our enemies spare no efforts to weaken the influence
of the Communist and Workers' parties among the broad
masses of the working people, to undermine the interna-
tional communist movement. All the attempts of imperial-
ist reaction, however, invariably suffer shipwreck.

A most striking demonstration of the increased might
of the world communist movement, of its greater unity
and solidarity were the meetings of representatives of
the Communist and Workers' parties held a year ago in
Moscow during the celebration of the 40th anniversary of
the Great October Socialist Revolution. The Declaration
and the Peace Manifesto summed up in a creative way
the collective experience of the Communist and Workers'
parties, formulated the tasks of the communist movement
in the struggle for peace, democracy and socialism at the
present stage.

The most important result of the year since the Novem-
ber meetings has been the still greater unity of the inter-
national communist movement. Evidence of the solidarity
of the world communist movement is the unanimous
stand taken by all Communist and Workers' parties
against present-day revisionism, which found its fullest ex-
pression in the programme of the League of Communists
of Yugoslavia.

There was not a single Marxist party in the world or
any sizable group within such a party which would share
the anti-Marxist views set forth in the programme of the
Yugoslav League of Communists or would defend the
position of the Yugoslav leadership. All the revolutionary
parties of the working class assessed the Yugoslav pro-
gramme as revisionist and severely condemned the sub-
versive, splitting actions of the leaders of the Yugoslav
League of Communists.

I should like to stress the great significance of a num-
ber of statements by Comrade Gomulka, who pointed out

?42

that the leadership of the League of Communists of Yugo-
slavia, owing to its fallacious revisionist theories, is iso-
lating Yugoslavia from the community of socialist coun-
tries and is thereby causing harm to the international
labour movement, and that the attitude of the leaders of
the Yugoslav League of Communists towards the camp of
socialist states corresponds objectively to the wishes and
aspirations of international reactionary forces, whose sup-
port for Yugoslavia is not accidental.

We fully and entirely subscribe to the assessment of
Yugoslav revisionism made by Comrade Gomulka. (Stor-
my applause.)

The unanimous condemnation of revisionism by the
revolutionary parties of the working class is a remarkable
fact, comrades. It indicates how mature our parties have
become ideologically, how great is their unity on the basis
of the principles of Marxism-Leninism, what an invinci-
ble and ever-increasing force is the international com-
munist movement. (Stormy applause.)

We have reiterated how highly we value the past serv-
ices of the Communist Party and the people of Yugo-
slavia, who have made such great sacrifices in the strug-
gle against German and Italian fascism. In that struggle
our peoples fought shoulder to shoulder against a com-
mon enemy.

Unfortunately the leaders of Yugoslavia, the individuals
who head the party, are backsliding from a working-class
position to the position of its enemies. Therefore, one can
hardly expect mutual understanding now in our relations
with the League of Communists of Yugoslavia on a Party
level, although we should not like to give up hope in this
respect.

On a state level we shall strive to promote friendly
relations with Yugoslavia, to extend trade and cultural
intercourse. In the future, too, we are ready to main-
tain trade with Yugoslavia on a mutually profitable
basis.

743

What does this mean? It means that we shall sell to
Yugoslavia what she needs if we have such goods availa-
ble for sale, and purchase from her what we need and
what Yugoslavia finds it possible to sell. This is what is
called trade on a mutually advantageous basis. (Ap-
plause.)

We stand for a broad interchange of various delega-
tions with Yugoslavia— delegations of persons engaged in
cultural activities, delegations of collective farmers,
workers and others. It would be extremely beneficial, for
instance, for our collective farmers to visit Yugoslavia
and for Yugoslav peasants to come to our country, or for
workers of the Soviet Union to be able to visit Yugo-
slavia and for Yugoslav workers to visit our country more
often. Let the working people of our countries familiarize
themselves with each other's life. Let them see that no
one bears any enmity for Yugoslavia, that our peoples
have only one desire— closer friendship. (Applause.)

After the normalization of relations with Yugoslavia,
after the elimination of all extraneous elements which ex-
isted in the relations between our countries, after the
clearing up of absurd accusations, quite a few positive
results have been achieved both in the relations between
our countries and with regard to problems of co-operation
in the struggle for peace. We may note with satisfaction
that on many major international issues our positions of-
ten coincide, and we hope that in the future, too, our coun-
tries will join their efforts in an active struggle for the
preservation and consolidation of peace. (Applause.)

As for our differences on ideological problems, we shall
continue to wage an irreconcilable struggle against all
distortions of Marxism-Leninism. All fraternal Commu-
nist and Workers' parties are united in this. They regard
revisionism as the main danger at the present stage. The
struggle against revisionism is the struggle for the purity
of our ideas, for the monolithic unity and solidarity of the
international communist movement. (Prolonged applause.)

744

Comrades, majestic perspectives, perspectives of build-
ing a communist society are opening before us. We rejoice
in the fact that the vanguard detachments of the work-
ing class, the ranks of those who are rallied under the
banner of Marxism-Leninism, are multiplying. (Prolonged
applause.)

The working class, the collective-farm peasantry, the
intellectuals in the Soviet Union are confidently advanc-
ing onward to communism. (Applause.) The 20th Con-
gress of the C.P.S.U. was a historic landmark on this
road. Now our country is preparing for the 21st Congress
of the C.P.S.U., the congress of the builders of communism.
(Applause.) This congress will outline a programme for
a further great advance in the Soviet economy, in the ma-
terial and cultural standard of life of the entire Soviet
people. (Applause.)

There is no doubt that these majestic tasks will be ful-
filled with credit. The Soviet Union, within a historically
short time, will overtake and forge ahead of the most
highly developed capitalist countries in per capita produc-
tion. This will be a great contribution to the victory of
communism over capitalism, a system which is moribund.
(Stormy applause.)

The achievements of the Soviet Union, the Chinese Peo-
ple's Republic, the Polish People's Republic and all the
socialist countries, the radical changes in the world bal-
ance of forces in favour of socialism, instil confidence in
many millions of working people in the ultimate triumph
of the great ideas of Marxism-Leninism. The victorious
banner of communism rises ever higher above our planet.
(Prolonged applause.)

Allow me, on behalf of all the working people of
our country, to wish the fraternal Polish people fresh suc-
cesses in building a socialist Poland. (Stormy ap-
plause.)

Allow me to express confidence that the bonds of frater-
nal friendship between the peoples of the Soviet Union

745

and the Polish People's Republic will become ever closer
and stronger day by day. (Stormy applause.)

Long live the indestructible Soviet-Polish friendship!
(Stormy applause.)

Long live the parties of the Polish People's Unity Front,
of which the Polish United Workers' Party is the leading
force! (Stormy applause.)

Long live the militant vanguard of the working people
of the Polish People's Republic— the Polish United Work-
ers' Party and its Central Committee headed by Comrade
Gomulka! (Stormy applause.)

Long live the unity of the countries of the great so-
cialist camp! (Stormy applause.)

Long live world peace! (Stormy, prolonged applause
All rise.)

SPEECH

ON DEPARTURE FROM MOSCOW OF POLISH PEOPLE'S

REPUBLIC DELEGATION

November I J, 1958

Dear Comrade Gomulka,

Dear Comrade Zawadski,

Dear Comrade Cyrankiewicz,

Dear Friends— members of the delegation of the Polish
People's Republic,

Dear Comrades,

Today we are seeing off our guests, the delegation of
the Polish People's Republic, which is returning home af-
ter a visit of friendship to our country.

The stay of our Polish friends in the Soviet Union devel-
oped into a moving demonstration of inviolable friend-
ship and solidarity between the Soviet and Polish peoples.

The Joint Polish-Soviet Statement signed yesterday re-
veals the identity of our views on all questions discussed.
This applies both to questions of Soviet-Polish relations,
and to international problems and the tasks of the peace-
loving peoples in the fight for preserving and strengthen-
ing peace. The Statement indicates that both sides are re-
solved to continue extending in every way the political,
economic and cultural co-operation of the Soviet Union
and Poiand on the basis (A Marxist-Leninist principles of
proletarian internationalism. Together with the entire so-
cialist camp, our peoples will continue to march in the van
of progressive mankind fighting for peace and for a rela-
xation of international tension.

747

Allow me, comrades, on behalf of the Central Committee
of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Presid-
ium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. and the Council
of Ministers of the U.S.S.R., on behalf of the entire
Soviet people, to thank the delegation of the Polish Peo-
ple's Republic heartily for the warm words addressed to
the peoples of the Soviet Union and our Communist Party
at numerous meetings with the working people of our
country by Comrade Gomulka, Comrade Zawadski, Com-
rade Cyrankiewicz and other members of the delegation
of the Polish People's Republic.

From the bottom of our hearts we wish fresh successes
to the glorious vanguard of the Polish people— the Polish
United Workers' Party and its Central Committee headed
by Comrade Gomulka. We also send our best wishes to
the parties of the Polish People's Unity Front— the
United Peasants' Party headed by the Chairman of the
Central Committee of that party, Comrade Ignar, and the
Democratic Party headed by the Chairman of the Central
Committee of that party, Comrade Kulczynski. Rallied
round the Polish United Workers' Party, the leading
party of the People's Unity Front, these parties contribute
greatly to the building of the new life in Poland.

Allow me also to thank the delegation of the Polish
People's Republic for inviting Soviet Party and Govern-
ment leaders to visit fraternal Poland. We have accepted
this kind invitation with satisfaction.

On behalf of the entire Soviet people, we ask you, dear
Polish friends, to convey to the Polish people our warm
and sincere greetings and our heartiest wishes of new
successes in the building of socialism.

Happy journey, dear comrades!

Long live the Polish people— builder of socialism and
fighter for international peace!

Long live inviolable Soviet-Polish friendship!

(N. S. Khrushchov's speech was warmly applauded.)

SOME QUESTIONS
CONCERNING INTERNATIONAL SITUATION

From Speech at Reception of Graduates
of Military Academies

November 14, 1958

Comrades,

The Communist Party and the Soviet Government, all
our people, are doing everything to maintain the Armed
Forces of the Soviet Union at the necessary standard and
to equip them with the latest weapons. But we are not
doing it to prepare our Army for any wars of conquest, as
the imperialists try to insinuate. By attributing aggres-
sive aims to the Soviet Union, our enemies betray their
own ambition of organizing military campaigns against
peaceful countries and gaining predatory imperialist
domination over the world.

We have no aggressive aims whatsoever. The Soviet
people have been brought up on the grand ideas of Marx-
ism-Leninism, in the spirit of respect for the freedom and
independence of all countries, the spirit of international
friendship. We proceed from the fact that there are no
unpopulated, countries, and that for this reason conquer-
ing a country or territory is tantamount to enslaving its
people and exploiting them and their wealth. This goes
entirely against our ideology, the great teaching of Marx-
ism-Leninism, and the policy of the Soviet Union and all
the socialist countries.

We know our strength very well. The socialist camp is
now strong and powerful as never before. Yet we cannot

749

disregard the strength of the imperialist campl The ruling
circles in the imperialist countries see what formidable
economic and cultural progress has been made in the So-
viet Union, the Chinese People's Republic, and all the so-
cialist countriesj

The imperialists wouldflike to halt the development of
the socialist countries by means of war. They would like
thereby to check or completely destroy the socialist trend
in social development, so as to preserve their domination,
to preserve the capitalist system.)

Not to be caught by surprise, to keep the aggressive
forces at arm's length from the Soviet Union and all the
socialist countries, to discourage the imperialists from
using war as a means of settling the ideological con-
troversy between socialism and capitalism, we \ must
see to it that our Armed Forces are always ready to
repel the aggressor, and to rout him. \ (Prolonged ap-
plause.)

We have said before, and say now, that our Armed
Forces will at no time or place ever be used for aggres-
sive purposes, which conflict with the very nature of pur
socialist system. We shall never seek to settle controver-
sial issues in international relations by means of war and
shall always strive to settle them peacefully through ne-
gotiation.

Comrades, we live at the wonderful time when the
scientific foresight of our great teachers, Marx and Lenin,
about the triumph of socialism over moribund capitalism
is coming true and the disgraceful colonial system is in
the act of collapsing. The peoples in the colonial coun-
tries are emerging from centuries of colonial oppression
and fighting stubbornly to become masters of their des-
tiny, their national wealth.

1 The imperialists are going to all lengths to preserve
their domination and keep the colonial countries in a state
of dependence. They are looking for new forms of keeping
the peoples of economically underdeveloped countries de-

750

pendent upon them. They are building up aggressive pacts
and alliances J such as NATO, the Baghdad Pact, SEATO,
and others/With this object U.S. and British imperialists
conclude diverse bilateral treaties and military agreements
wiih a number of countries.

[But all these pacts, blocs and agreements are noth-
ing but an artfully camouflaged form of the same old im-
perialist policy of keeping these countries in complete sub-
jection to the principal imperialist Powers under the pre-
text of defending them from the "communist threat," and
paralyzing the struggle of their peoples for liberation
from colonialists, from these dyed-in-the-wool imperialist
exploiters.

The imperialists stop at nothing to appropriate the re-
sources of the peoples of colonial and dependent countries.
Aided by venal men occupying high government posts
in some of the dependent countries, the imperialists try
to drag these countries into their own camp so they should
themselves help the imperialists in shoring up rotten and
corrupt regimes and keep the peoples in the dependencies
in colonial slavery. The most prominent part in this be-
longs to the imperialists of the United States/Britain and
France.

But the peoples are carrying on their fight against im-
perialism and colonialism. Take the recent revolution in
Iraq. Iraq was considered a staunch support for the im-
perialist countries in the Middle East. Yet the Iraqis man-
aged to break out of the imperialist trap, into which their
country had been lured by the reactionaries headed by a
traitor king and a corrupt government obedient to the
will and directives of foreign monopolists to the detriment
of the interests of their country and people.

It was in this Iraq, thought by the imperialists to be
a reliable Baghdad Pact bastion, that the revolutionary
events broke out, which left the Baghdad Pact without
Baghdad. (Applause.) Today Iraq is an independent repub-
lic conducting a policy of peace.

75T

This has greatly frightened the imperialist Powers and
Iraq's neighbours, who are members of aggressive impe-
rialist blocs. The kings and rulers of these countries are
trembling in their boots. And it is not communism, not
the Soviet Union, which has put fear into them. It is their
own people whom they fear. In each of these countries
each king and ruler now imagines events that occurred in
Iraq. For this reason they fear and tremble before their
people and rush from extreme to extreme, soliciting sup-
port for their tottering thrones and corrupt cliques. It is
not in their own people that they seek support. They make
no effort to get a better understanding of their people's
needs, to satisfy their wishes, to give them democratic
freedoms and an opportunity of stamping out social in-
justice, to find better forms of government, and to improve
social conditions. The kings and rulers seek support in
those who install colonial regimes, who oppress and plun-
der the peoples, who are intent on playing the part of mo-
dern international policeman.

I The United States- and Britain willingly assume the
functions of international policeman. During the revolu-
tionary developments in Iraq they sent their troops to the
Lebanon, and to Jordan. Their agents roam about in other
countries, offering their police services at what would ap-
pear a trifling price. But in reality the price of their
services turns out to be very high.

At present the rulers of some capitalist countries agree
to unequal treaties with the United States.; But to con-
ceal this in some way, they claim that these treaties are
allegedly defensive and a safeguard against the Soviet
threat, although it is common knowledge that the Soviet
Union has never threatened anyone, and does not threaten
anyone now. Our enemies harp on some Soviet "threat,"
while the kings and rulers of certain states have some-
thing else in mind., .What they fear is their own peoples
and they want the United States to back them, to protect
them from the righteous wrath of the people. I

752

tu.S. ruling circles undertake police functions against
the peoples of many countries where poverty reigns and
millions die of starvation and disease as a result of colo-
nial domination. These peoples wage a gallant struggle
for freedom, for their rights, for a better life. And no
police force— neither internal, nor external— will save
the kings and rulers who do not heed the interests of their
countries, but seek the support of external imperialist

forces.

In hammering together their military blocs, the impe-
rialists do not conceal their aggressive designs. Generals
in countries that are party to these aggressive blocs often
make provocative statements against the peaceful nations.
Recently, Field Marshal Montgomery, known for his in-
flammatory statements and attacks upon the Soviet Union,
retired from the post of Deputy Supreme Commander of
NATO Armed Forces in Europe. Now he has been replaced
by another Englishman, General Gale. No sooner had
he assumed his duties than he adopted the methods of his
predecessor and made a provocative speech. He bragged
brazenly about the possibilities of military adventures
against the Soviet Union and other peaceful countries.
Among other things, he extolled in every way the modern
means of communication and the air power of the NATO
countries. In the past, Gale declared, it took eight hours to
connect Paris and Oslo, whereas now it takes just a few
seconds. In the past the Western armed forces had
just so many airfields, he said, whereas now they have
so and so many bases. General Gale advertised the
armed forces of the North Atlantic bloc in every
way.

I should like to say in this connection that the sabre-
rattling speeches of this general are inept and naive.
He obviously lacks wisdom in understanding the con-
temporary situation and making a sober estimate of
the balance of forces that has taken shape in the latest
period.

753

With modern means of annihilation what they are, when
there are atomic and hydrogen weapons, and interconti-
nental ballistic missiles, and winged rockets, and subma-
rines armed with ballistic and winged missiles, it matters
little that NATO forces can connect Paris and Oslo in a
few seconds. Today, one only needs to press a button to
blow up not only airfields and means of communication
of diverse headquarters, but to lay waste entire cities, and
entire countries. Such is the tremendous destructive force
of modern man-made weapons.

We have said repeatedly that it is best to cease these
inflammatory speeches, which cause alarm and fear
in people. It would be far more sensible to work for a
settlement of controversial issues by negotiation,
barring threats, let alone the use of weapons, so that peo-
ple could live peacefully and enjoy the fruits of their
labour.

But statesmen of the more aggressive imperialist groups
carry on their notorious policy "from positions of
strength." Recently Mr. Dulles declared again in a speech
that the Western Powers were prepared to use armed force
to retain control of West Berlin.

The Soviet Government is preparing an appropriate do-
cument concerning the status of Berlin. We intend to ap-
proach the countries which participated in the war against
Hitler Germany and fascist Italy with certain proposals,
of which I have already spoken at the meeting of Polish-
Soviet friendship.

As for Mr. Dulles' attempts to intimidate us, we can say
categorically that threats and intimidations carry no
weight with us, and all the more so since the Soviet Union,
as everybody knows* has the means to bring any aggres-
sor to his senses. (Stormy applause.)

Speaking of Berlin, we do not say that we shall go to
war against the West. There was nothing of the kind in
our speeches. We never said anything of the kind. But
we did say, and we say now, that if the aggressors at-

754

tack the Soviet Union, the socialist countries, they will
encountei a crushing rebuff. (Prolonged applause.)

Mr. Dulles likes to refer to God in his speeches. If he is
really a pious man, we should recommend under the circum-
stances that he go to church and pray that God give him, a
man in a high post, the patience and intelligence to get
his proper bearings in the international situation and not
to abuse his standing, not to frighten people, but to strive
for a sensible settlement of controversial issues without re-
sort to threats of war. (Applause.)

High-ranking statesmen such as Mr. Dulles must not
liken themselves to a duellist who reaches instantly for
his sword or pistol in an argument. They would do well
to bear in mind that the partner whom they want to at-
tack, apparently has the same, and perhaps an even
more powerful and dangerous weapon. (Prolonged ap-
plause.)

They say that before making important decisions, the
ancient Romans were in the habit of taking a cold show-
er. Perhaps this should also be recommended to some
excessively zealous proponents of the policy of "brinkman-
ship."

Today, when there are modern weapons of mass annihi-
lation, methods of intimidation are absolutely inadmissible.
With the modern intercontinental ballistic missiles and
medium- and short-range rockets there is no country on
Earth and, what is more, no corner of the globe, which
would be safe if a third world war were to break out. To-
day everybody knows what destructive and disastrous con-
sequences an atomic war can bring about.

While encircling the Soviet Union with their military
bases, the American imperialists like to use the language
of chess players. They often say that they want to check
us, that is, to put us in a difficult position. But it must be
borne in mind that if one side wants to check, the other
side might, for its part, also declare check, and even check-
mate. (Stormy applause.)

755

In our day one cannot indulge in blackmail and intimi-
dation with impunity as the imperialists like to do.

The Soviet Union, all the socialist countries, for their
part, are doing everything to secure world peace.

Comrades, the Theses on Control Figures for the Eco-
nomic Development of the Soviet Union for 1959-65 testify
to the formidable achievements and the grand prospects
our country faces in the future. We need no war. We need
peace. Nor is it our country alone that needs peace. The
peoples of all the world are vitally interested in preserv-
ing and consolidating peace. We shall compete peacefully
with capitalism in the economic sphere, where our contro-
versy will be decided through economic development rath-
er than atomic and hydrogen weapons. Naturally, the
ideological, the class struggle will continue. But the so-
cialist countries have no wish whatsoever to foist their
ideology on other countries by force of arms.

Some spokesmen of the American capitalists say that
the word "competition" should not be used and that it
should be replaced by the term: economic collaboration.
We have no objections to that. We stand for economic col-
laboration on mutually beneficial terms. The main thing
is to banish war as a means of solving controversial ques-
tions, to give the peoples a chance to choose their path of
development by themselves.

Our seven-year plan has set grand tasks. The time is
not far distant when we shall catch up the United States
in per capita production of key industrial items. Our coun-
try will achieve the highest living standard and have the
world's shortest working day.

To use a figure of speech, we are putting everything
projected in our seven-year plan on the scales. Let the
capitalists give the working people all that has been,
and soon will be, achieved in the socialist countries.
But the capitalist system cannot give the working
people, the whole nation, what the socialist system can
give.

756

We want the people to choose for themselves what suits
them best, what system accords with the fundamental in-
terests of the toilers and what system gives some the op-
portunity of enriching themselves by exploiting and plun-
dering others. We are sure that the peoples will make the
right choice. All peoples will choose the path charted by
Marxism-Leninism. {Stormy applause.)

The future is with us, with socialism, with communism!
We have created all the conditions we need to advance
with giant strides along the road shown us by Marx and
Lenin--the road to communism. And no hostile forces will
stop our advance! (Stormy, prolonged applause. All rise.)

PROPOSALS OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT
ON THE BERLIN QUESTION

Press Conference in Kremlin Held by N. S. Khrushchov,
Chairman of the U.S.S.R. Council of Ministers

November 27, 1958

A. A. Gromyko: Allow me to declare the press confer-
ence open. N. S. Khrushchov, Chairman of the Council
of Ministers of the U.S.S.R., has the floor.

Khrushchov: I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
the U.S.S.R., before handing over for publication the texts
of our Notes on the Berlin question — which were forward-
ed earlier today to the Governments of the United States
of America, Britain, France, the German Democratic Re-
public and the Federal Republic of Germany — to acquaint
the correspondents with these documents so that, after
reading the Soviet Government's Notes, they could pre-
pare the questions they would like to put.

P. Naumov, "Pravda": Why has the Soviet Government
chosen this particular moment to suggest the ending of
the occupation status of Berlin? What is the purpose of
the Soviet Government's step towards changing the status
of West Berlin?

Khrushchov: I shall try to answer this question. You in-
quire why the question of ending the occupation status
of Berlin has arisen, and why it has become necessary to
settle this question at this particular time? This is ex-
plained by the particular relations which have developed
between the Great Powers or, as the press would say,
between the West and the East.

758

We have taken many steps towards relieving the ten-
sion in international relations, paving the way for a de-
tente for developing normal relations between states, ensur-
ing peaceful co-existence and solving whatever differences
may arise by peaceful means, without allowing matters
to lead to conflict. We have undertaken no few measures
to find methods of approach to this problem that is to
say towards the establishment of a normal situation
throughout the world and, above all, in Europe towards
ensuring understanding and peace among the states which
fought against Nazi Germany. And enough time-more
than 13 years— has elapsed since the war.

The obstacle to the conclusion of a peace treaty with
Germany, as the representatives of the Western Powers
explain and upon which West Germany particularly in-
sists, is their unwillingness to recognize reality. And the
actual reality is that there are two German states in exist-
ence—the Federal Republic of Germany, which bases its
existence on the principle of private capitalist ownership,
and the German Democratic Republic, which is growing
and developing on a socialist basis and moving in the
direction of socialism. .

If we accept this reasoning which is often regarded m
the West as valid, then it is necessary to perpetuate this
situation. Indeed, the German Democratic Republic would
hardly be able to persuade Herr Adenauer and his Gov-
ernment that West Germany should adopt a socialist trend
in her state activity. That would, of course, be desir-
able both for the Germans of the German Democratic Re-
public and for many of the Germans in West Germany, as
well as for all progressive mankind, and we, as Commu-
nists, would welcome this very much.

But to think that Herr Adenauer and the ruling circles
of West Germany will agree to it would mean indulging
in wishful thinking.

On the other hand, certain circles in West Germany and,
to my regret, Chancellor Adenauer and others, do in-

759

dulge in this sort of wishful thinking, as they are hoping,
for some reason or other, to get the German Democratic
Republic to renounce its socialist system and to adopt a
capitalist system. This, they say, would be the basis for
the "reunification" of Germany, that is to say, for the mo-
nopoly circles of West Germany to absorb the German
Democratic Republic and thus create a united Germany
on the same social basis prevailing in West Germany. And
only after this will it become possible, in their opinion, to
conclude a peace treaty. Are these hopes realistic? Of
course not. They must be described as fantastic, since the
working people of the German Democratic Republic will
never agree to give up their social and political gains in
favour of exploiters and monopolists.

So what is to be done?

One must proceed from the real facts. There exists a
divided Berlin where the occupation regime is still main-
tained. The war was ended more than 13 years ago. I feel
that every normal person finds such a situation abnormal.
It is necessary, therefore, to find a solution that will end
this abnormality, because the present existence of the
occupation regime serves no positive purpose at all. The
perpetuation of such a situation would be to the advan-
tage only of a party pursuing aggressive aims.

West Berlin is a convenient place for the Western
Powers to conduct an aggressive policy against the Ger-
man Democratic Republic, and against the Soviet Union
and other countries of the socialist camp. In view of a
definite policy of the Western Powers to whip up revenge-
ful sentiments in West Germany and to encourage the re-
vival of reactionary fascist organizations and forces there,
West Berlin has been turned into a kind of cancerous tu-
mour. And if it is not eliminated this threatens to become
a danger that may lead to quite undesirable consequences.
It is precisely because of this that we have decided
to perform a surgical operation, i.e., to terminate the oc-
cupation status of Berlin and to create conditions that will

760

help to normalize relations between the Great Powers of
the former anti-Hitler coalition. We wish to establish a
normal atmosphere, normal conditions, in which the rela-
tions between our countries will become what they were
during the war against Hitler Germany.

We are convinced that all peoples who stand for end-
ing the cold war, for establishing normal conditions in
the mutual relations between countries, for ensuring the
peaceful co-existence of countries, irrespective of their
systems and for ruling out friction and conflicts between
countries— all these people will welcome the Soviet
Union's proposals for the solution of the Berlin problem.
At the same time, we realize perfectly well that certain
circles who are in favour of continuing the cold war,
stand for utilizing West Berlin as a hotbed of discord for
kindling a hot war. These circles will naturally be dis-
pleased with our peace proposals and will oppose them. But
we are convinced that such people constitute a minority in
the world. The overwhelming majority of people want
peace in the world and therefore we count on the support
of these people.

H. Shapiro, United Press International: Would it be cor-
rect to infer from the Soviet Note that for half a year
the Soviet Union would not take any steps changing the
regime existing in Berlin at the present time?

Khrushchov: I think that you are right in your conclusion
that in the course of the period announced, that is to say,
for six months, we shall not alter the conditions which
have already taken shape in Berlin, although we regard 1
them as abnormal. But we should like to eliminate even |
these abnormal conditions in a normal way, that is to
say, by means of agreement. In eliminating the abnormal
situation we do not wish to worsen in any way the rela-
tions between the peoples. By means of an agreement we
wish to create normal conditions which would help to pro-
mote a friendly atmosphere in the relations among all
states.

761

I am saying this, naturally, with one reservation:
Throughout the period stated, we shall observe the norms
established by the occupation regime, on condition that
other countries do not take provocative steps endangering
the cause of peace.

I believe there is nothing left to say on this question.

K. Sarneko, Agence France-Presse: Berlin is known to
be the capital of the German Democratic Republic. Why
then, in spite of this fact, is it proposed to give the west-
ern part of Berlin the status of a free and demilitarized
city?

Khrushchov: The question is put correctly. Indeed, if we
are to proceed from the provisions which stem from the
Potsdam Agreement, it is clear to everyone that Berlin is
situated within the territory of that part of Germany where
the German Democratic Republic has been created and
is developing. Therefore the most correct decision would
be one in accordance with which, the western part of Ber-
lin, now actually torn away from the German Democratic
Republic, would be reunified with its eastern part. Then
the city of Berlin would become a single entity within
the composition of the state on whose soil it is situated.

Thirteen years have elapsed since the end of the war
and the signing of the Potsdam Agreement. During this
time different directions have been taken in the economic
development and in the state systems of West Berlin and
of East Berlin, and of the German Democratic Republic
as a whole. If liquids of entirely different composition are
mixed in one vessel, then, as chemists say, a certain
reaction takes place. But we want the Berlin problem to
be solved on a basis that will not cause a turbulent
reaction.

We want to approach the solution of this question tak-
ing into consideration the actual conditions that exist.
And the best, most realistic approach to the solution of
the Berlin problem is to recognize the fact that there exist
two German states and to recognize the different systems

762

existing within these states. In view of this it would be
best to establish for the western part of Berlin the status
of a free city with its own government and with its
own social and governmental systems.

We believe that in the present situation, only on the
basis of such a realistic approach is it possible to find a
correct solution of the Berlin problem and painlessly to
remove the cancerous tumour into which West Berlin has
now been converted. We wish to provide normal condi-
tions for the solution of this problem, so that people re-
siding in West Berlin and having different views and con-
victions, should not be forced against their will to ac-
cept a system which they do not like.

We greatly appreciate the position of the German Dem-
ocratic Republic, the Government of which has under-
stood our proposals correctly and supports them. We
highly value such a position because it is evidence of the
deep understanding by the Government of the German
Democratic Republic of the interests of strengthening
peace and reunifying their country. The Government of
the German Democratic Republic supports this measure
with regard to West Berlin in the interests of ensuring
peace and solving the German problem, in the hope that
this step may set a good precedent for solving other out-
standing problems as well. I believe that all who support
the interests of peace will understand this step correctly
and approve it. This step may help to solve the questions
involved in the signing of a peace treaty with Germany,
in establishing contacts between the two German states—
the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Repub-
lic of Germany.

M. Gerasimov, TASS: The Western press claims that the
steps envisaged by the Soviet Government for eliminat-
ing the vestiges of the occupation regime in Berlin might
aggravate the economic position of the city and its resi-
dents. Are there any grounds for such assertions?

Khrushchov: In my opinion our proposals contain the

763

answer to this question. We have stated that the Soviet
Union, by the orders it places, will ensure that West Ber-
lin's industrial enterprises operate at full capacity. The
Soviet Union also undertakes to fully supply West Ber-
V lin with food. Naturally, we intend to do both these things
on a commercial basis. I think that no one questions the
possibilities at the disposal of the Soviet Union. West Ber-
lin workers and employers can engage in activities useful
to the Berlin population. Far from resulting in a deterio-
ration of the standard of living, this will ensure a higher
level of employment and provide the conditions for raising
the standard of living.

Thus, should anyone be in doubt or uneasy about this
matter, it must be said that these doubts have no grounds
whatsoever.

V. Kudryavtsev, "Izvesti'a": How is one to interpret the
statements of certain political leaders of the Federal Re-
public of Germany insisting on the preservation of the
existing situation in Berlin?

Khrushchov: I think I have already partly replied to this
question. The political leaders and the statesmen who
are insisting on maintaining the old status of Berlin are
also insisting on maintaining the abnormal conditions
which have arisen in Europe and in the rest of the world.
There is tension in international relations at the present
time. To insist on retaining the source of this tension
means perpetuating it, rather than eliminating it. How-
ever, all tension in relations can generate over-tension
and this, in view of the present development of armaments,
may entail rather grievous consequences for the human
race.

It is necessary, therefore, to stamp out the source of
tension and to create normal conditions so that people
may sleep undisturbed without the danger of an outbreak of
a new war involving atomic and hydrogen weapons hanging
over them. One may legitimately question the sanity of those
who insist on the preservation of an abnormal situation.

764

V Buist, Reuters: What guarantees will the Soviet Gov-
ernment give with respect to West Berlin as a free city?
Will there be any change in the Soviet Government s pol-
icy on Berlin should West Germany give up her rearma-
ment programme? m l

Khrushchov: The statements of the Soviet Government
and all of our documents provide a full guarantee in this
respect. We shall do everything to safeguard and support
the free city and ensure non-interference in its internal
affairs, so that it can develop in keeping with the wishes
of its population.

Should other countries recognize this situation or should
they agree to sign a joint document and, if necessary, to
have this recorded in a resolution of the United Nations,
we would be willing to do so.

You ask whether there will be any change in the So-
viet Government's policy on Berlin should West Germany
give up her rearmament programme? No, there will be none.
It must be borne in mind that Germany is not supposed
to be armed under the Potsdam Agreement. Therefore one
cannot regard West Germany's renunciation of her rear-
mament programme as being a concession for a conces-
sion. These are two different things and of different value.
Should West Germany declare that she will not arm her-
self, with the occupation regime of Berlin still maintained,
the' source of tension and conflict will not be stamped
out, but it will remain as before. It is necessary, there-
fore, to do away with this abnormal situation. It would
be very wise if West Germany did not arm herself, and it
would be still wiser if the other states with forces in
East and West Germany withdrew their troops, which we
have suggested repeatedly. The ending of the occupation
regime in Berlin and the establishment of a free city in
the western part of Berlin would contribute to solving
the problem of withdrawing the troops from Germany and
would also be helpful in solving the problem of disarma-
ment.

765

„* Leonhardt, ADN (German Democratic Republic)-

What steps and measures would be desirable, in your judge-
ment to ensure that changes in the status of Berlin
could be made normally and without any difficulties'

Khrushchoy: We desire that these measures involve no
difficulties. If all the states whom we are addressing were
to reply to our proposals by welcoming them and stating
their wil mgness to meet, if necessary, to sign appropriate
documents, that would be most reasonable. I am convinced
that such a position would be welcomed by all people
who stand for safeguarding world peace. We do not ex-
pect acclaim, but we do believe that our proposal will
be properly understood and received as one correspond-
ing to the interests of international peace and se-
curity. v c

The Berlin question will take time to settle, and for this
reason we have fixed a time limit of six months in which
to think over -carefully every aspect of this question, and
to solve it radically and eliminate this seat of danger

C Kiss, I. Szabo and I. Kulcsar, correspondents of

badsS-f Tl JegraPh AgCnCy' the new*PaPer "Nepsza-
badsag and the Hungarian Radio: What steps does the So-
viet Government propose to take should the Western Pow-
ers decline to accept a free-city status for Berlin?

Khrushchov: It would be highly undesirable if the gov-
ernments concerned whom we are addressing were to dis-
agree with our proposals. But even if things did take
such an unwelcome turn, that would not stop us. When
the time limit expires, we shall carry into effect our pro-
posals as stated in our documents. I am not going to en-

Zf.iT u reau°nS Why we have taken this decision,
since these have been set out in great detail in the docu-
ments of the Soviet Government.

B. Nielsen-Stokkeby, DPA Agency (Federal Republic of
Germany): What will the Soviet Governments posnio be
should he Government of the United States decline the
proposal for a free-city status for Berlin and should it

766

also refuse to withdraw its troops from Berlin or to hold
any talks with the Government of the German Democratic

Republic? . J , ^

Khrushchov: If the United States rejects our proposal, we

would certainly regret it. But this, as I have said would

not stop us from carrying out our proposals. We have

no other way out. When the Western Powers, that is to

say, the United States, Britain and France, violated the

most important provisions of the Potsdam Agreement with

respect to German demilitarization and began to arm the

Federal Republic of Germany, we protested against it. but

our protests passed unheeded and the process of reviving

militarism in West Germany goes on. Therefore if our

proposal for West Berlin is not accepted, we shall have to

do just what the Western Powers did when they cast

aside the commitments they had assumed at Potsdam and

other obligations resulting from the defeat of Nazi Ger-

"^S. Russel, "Daily Worker" (Britain): In view of the fact
that various spy organizations and radio stations carry-
ing on subversive activity in West Berlin provide employ-
ment for many people, what does the Soviet Government
propose to do to prevent these people from becoming unem-
ployed? (Laughter.)

^ Khrushchov: Evidently, the only thing to recommend to
these people in this case is to change their trade (laugh-
ter), that is, to stop lying and spying and get down to
work which is useful to the peoples. And if some of them
still remain unemployed, I can offer them no sympathy.
(Animation in the hall.)

M. Tatu, "Le Monde" (France): Mr. Chairman, you have
said that West Berlin belongs to the German Democratic
Republic. Does this mean that, in the opinion of the So-
viet Government, this status of West Berlin will be tem-
porary and at a later stage the Soviet Government will
propose the inclusion of West Berlin in the German Dem-
ocratic Republic?

767

Khrushchov: I have understood your question and shall
give you my answer. No, we do not consider that this is
temporary recognition or temporary sacrifice on the part
of the German Democratic Republic. We believe that the
free-city status of West Berlin will continue as long as
the citizens of the free city of Berlin so desire it — that is
to say, they will establish the order they may choose.

H. Schewe, "Die Welt" (West Germany): If West Berlin
is given the status of a free city, will a corridor be
provided in that case for access to the city from West Ger-
many, such as the one which was once provided for the
free city of Danzig?

Khrushchov: These are details about which it is difficult
for me to speak at present. But I think that the free city
of Berlin certainly should be given a guarantee of free
communication, both in the eastern and western directions.
This is provided for in our proposals.

M. Frankel, "New York Times": The Soviet Government's
Note to the U.S. Government states that if the proposals
put forward in the document should not be acceptable to
the U.S. Government, there would remain no subject for
negotiations on the Berlin problem between the former
occupying Powers. Does this mean that if the Govern-
ment of the United States disagrees with the specific pro-
posals put forward in the Soviet document, the Soviet
Government will not be interested in considering any
other proposals on the Berlin question?

Khrushchov: You see, it depends on exactly what the
United States will not be in agreement with. If it rejects
as a whole the question posed in our document, then in-
deed there will remain no subject for talks about the Ber-
lin question. If, however, the need arises to specify and
discuss our proposals, that, in my opinion, is quite permis-
sible and even necessary. For this reason we put this
question, not in the nature of an ultimatum, but suggest
a six-month time limit for a comprehensive discus-
sion on it, for meetings with representatives of Western

768

Powers, to discuss the Soviet Government's proposals if
the Western Powers display readiness to discuss this
question.

J. Steinmayr, "Siiddeutsche Zeitung" (West Germany): It
has been said that the Soviet proposals regarding Berlin
are planned on a long-term basis. Are they envisaged ap-
proximately for the period of the existence of the two Ger-
man states?

Khrushchov: If the two German states agree on reuni-
fication, this in itself obviously will settle the question of
the discontinuation of the existence of the free city, be-
cause Germany would be united and by the will of the
German people Berlin would obviously become the capital
of the single German state.

T. Lambert, "New York Herald Tribune": Should the So-
viet Note be regarded as a denunciation of the Potsdam
Agreement?

Khrushchov: And do you believe the Potsdam Agreement
is being observed now? (Laughter.)

Lambert: Some people believe that it is. (Animation in
the hall.)

Khrushchov: The Governments of the United States, Brit-
ain and France have grossly •violated the Potsdam Agree-
ment and sabotaged its fulfilment. At the same time they
cling to one part of this agreement to prolong somehow
the occupation of Berlin. Other participants in the war
against Hitler Germany consider that by having sabotaged
the observance of a number of the major provisions of
the Potsdam Agreement, the Western Powers have for-
feited the right to stay in Berlin. As you know, we adhere
to this point of view.

Khrushchov (addressing the correspondents):

Have you any other questions you wish me to answer?
No? I hope that I have been able to satisfy the requests of
the correspondents present. I should like the Soviet Gov-
ernment's step with regard to Berlin to be understood cor-
rectly. It has already been said before that this step is

769

aimed at eliminating a source of tension, at ensuring a
world detente, and providing normal conditions for peace-
ful co-existence and competition. This is an interesting
sphere offering wide scope for activities for the benefit of
the peoples. It is this aim that has been pursued by the
Soviet Government in putting forward its proposals on
the Berlin question. I urge you to contribute to this noole
cause.

I have read today the speech of U.S. Vice-President Ni-
xon, in London. For the first time, perhaps, I can say that
I agree with the concluding part of his speech which men-
tioned peaceful competition. This is a rare event. In the
closing of his London speech, Mr. Nixon stated that we
must at last pass over to economic competition. He said-
Let our main aim be, "not the defeat of communism, but
the victory of plenty over want, of health over disease,
of freedom over tyranny."

I welcome this statement. If Mr. Nixon adopts such a
tone in his speeches in future and if other statesmen
of the United States, Britain, France and West Germany
follow suit, we shall welcome it.

One cannot help noting the new ring in the voice of Mr.
Nixon, the final portion of whose speech in this case did
not breathe fall-out from the fission of atomic explosions
with which the peoples are threatened. We are against
the arms race, against the threat of a new war. We stand
for peaceful competition in the economic sphere Let us
compete on such a basis— who will beat whom?

Mr. Nixon speaks about a readiness to compete in the
peaceful sphere to see who will ensure a higher standard
of living for the people, who will provide the people with
better conditions for enjoying the benefits of culture, who
will guarantee more freedoms for the people. He expresses
a readiness to compete in providing better conditions
in order to "eliminate tyranny." We differ with Mr. Nixon
with regard to our conception of tyranny: What he regards
as freedom for the rich to exploit the poor, we regard as

770

tyranny; we forbid exploitation but he regards our meas-
ures against exploiters as tyranny. These are different
conceptions.

Let there even be different interpretations of some con-
ceptions and terms. What is important is that our efforts
should be directed towards peaceful competition.

In conclusion Khrushchov thanked the correspondents
for their attention and said good-bye.

Pravda, November 28, 1958

REPLIES

TO QUESTIONS PUT BY HANS KEMPSKI,

CHIEF CORRESPONDENT OF SuDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG,

GERMAN FEDERAL REPUBLIC

Hans Ulrich Kempski, chief correspondent of the West
German Suddeutsche Zeitung, requested N. S. Khrushchev
to reply to a number of questions. Below are published
N. S. Khrushchov's replies to the correspondent's ques-
tions.

Question: Could you describe in greater detail the status
of the free city of West Berlin?

Answer: The Soviet Government's proposals for doing
away with the vestiges of the occupation regime in Berlin
and for turning West Berlin into an independent politi-
cal entity— a demilitarized free city— give one an idea of
what West Berlin would be like. In our view West Berlin
must be a free city in whose economic and political life
no country, including the existing German states, would
be able to interfere. The free city of West Berlin will have
its own constitution, based on democratic principles. The
constitution should guarantee all the citizens of West Ber-
lin, regardless of political or religious convictions, the
fundamental human rights and principal freedoms, includ-
ing freedom of speech and of the press, freedom of as-
sembly and of association, and freedom of conscience. Leg-
islative power will be vested in a freely elected Parlia-
ment, and executive power in the government appointed

772

by the Parliament. The city will also have its own inde-
pendent judicature.

As regards the economic aspect, the free city of West
Berlin will be a single entity with its own budget, its
bank currency circulation and taxation system. The reve-
nues will all go to the city budget, and will not be pumped
out of West Berlin taxpayers' pockets for the military
preparations of the Federal Republic of Germany and the
upkeep of foreign occupation troops in West Berlin Giv-
en appropriate agreements, the industrial output ot the
West Berlin undertakings would be exported both to Fed-
eral Republic of Germany and the German Democratic
Republic, as well as to all other countries with which the
free city establishes business contacts, without any restric-
tions. The stability and advancement of the city's econo-
my also would be ensured by the development of all-round,
mutually beneficial economic relations with the countries
of the East and West. The Soviet Union, on its part, is
ready to provide the industry of the free city with orders
and raw materials, thereby ensuring full employment for
the population and a sound, well-balanced economy.

The Soviet Government proposes that West Berlin be de-
militarized and have no foreign armed forces on its terri-
tory. It goes without saying that the free city will have the
necessary police formations to maintain law and order
in the city. Some advocates of perpetuating the occupa-
tion regime in Berlin are now trying to assert that if the
troops of the three Western Powers leave the city, West
Berlin, so they allege, will be deprived of all protection.
We are confident that the opposite is the case: precisely
the absence of American tanks and British guns in the
streets of West Berlin, and its transformation into a free
city, will create an atmosphere of tranquility and will
guarantee the appropriate security. It is hardly possible
to imagine better guarantees for the security of West Ber-
lin than the commitments of the four Great Powers and
the two German states.

773

These commitment-guarantees may, if necessary, be re-
corded with the United Nations. The Soviet Union and
the German Democratic Republic are ready to take part
in these guarantees with a view to observing the status
of the free city. Only the Western Powers are still refus-
ing to do so.

It is appropriate to ask: Where would the threat to the
status of the future free city come from — the East or West?
In this connection one cannot fail to note the absurdity
of some statements about mythical plans of the German
Democratic Republic to seize West Berlin. Is it not clear
that if such plans actually existed, the Soviet Union, as an
ally of the German Democratic Republic under the Warsaw
Treaty, would not be advancing a proposal to grant West
Berlin the status of a free, city and would not be express-
ing its readiness to take part in guaranteeing its secu-
rity? Moreover, for the sake of easing tension in Germany
and Europe, the German Democratic Republic is making
no small sacrifice by agreeing to the existence of a free
city in the heart of the republic and by guaranteeing this
city's unobstructed communications with the East and the
West.

Those who insist that it is necessary that a certain num-
ber of Western troops stay in Berlin in order to safeguard
the present situation there, should learn to assess realis-
tically the existing situation. Indeed, if there were reasons
for solving the Berlin question by force, would the pres-
ence of some troops in West Berlin constitute an insur-
mountable obstacle, with the modern means of warfare
available? On the contrary, the stay of these troops in
Berlin is precisely what creates the "cancerous tumour"
which all the peace-loving peoples, and above all the Ger-
man people themselves, fear may grow to such dimen-
sions that conflicts, and then open military clashes, may
break out. Precisely for this reason we propose to do away
with this malignant tumour, in order to create conditions
which, instead of increasing tension in Europe, would, on

774

the contrary, reduce it to naught and create a favourable
climate for peaceful co-existence. The implementation of
our proposal will lay the foundation for easing and im-
proving the atmosphere in Europe and eliminating such a
hotbed in Berlin.

Given the requisite understanding and good relations,
favourable preconditions would be created for solving oth-
er still more complicated questions, and particularly the
question of withdrawing troops, so that the armed forces
of the two opposing military groupings would not be in
direct contact, as a result of which there would be creat-
ed a kind of disengagement zone. We are ready, on our
part, to reduce the number of troops stationed in the Ger-
man' Democratic Republic, on condition that the Western
Powers as well agree to cut down their own forces station-
ed in West Germany. We are even prepared to withdraw all
our troops from the territories of the European countries
where they are now temporarily stationed to our national
frontiers, if the Western Powers do likewise. If these pro-
posals of ours were accepted, we would be ready to estab-
lish a control over the reduction and withdrawal of for-
eign troops from both German states. There is hardly any
need to demonstrate the advantages arising from the with-
drawal of foreign troops from German territory. I am sure
that this step would bring substantial alleviation to the
German people.

I should like to reply, in this connection, to certain
windbags who concoct fabrications about the Soviet Union
intending to seize West Berlin. Their speculations on this
subject are merely stupid. Such an allegation can only
be made by people who desire, at whatever cost, to per-
petuate the present tension, while we are striving to
create conditions for the ending of the cold war, to create
an atmosphere which would not poison relations among
the Great Powers, and, for that matter, not solely among
them. We are sincerely striving to dispel the sinister
clouds of a third world war that is now being prepared

775

by certain people. Who else, if not the Germans in the
two German states, who have paid a toll of many human
lives and colossal material wealth in wars, and particu-
larly during the last war, should know what war is really
like? They are fed up with wars and, I have no doubt, are
opposed to the preparation of a third world war. The im-
plementation of the Soviet proposals would create favour-
able conditions for a more rational use of material and
monetary resources, would prevent the draining of nation-
al budgets to meet military needs, and would make them
available for raising the peoples' standard of living.

The status of a free city does not impose any onerous
obligations on West Berlin or its residents. We propose
only one thing: West Berlin must not permit any hostile,
subversive activity or propaganda on its territory against
any other state, and above all against the German Dem-
ocratic Republic. And furthermore, the residents of this
city will be the first to gain from this — residents who are
now becoming enmeshed, against their will, in the webs
of various espionage and subversive organizations, and
thereby exposing their own lives to grave danger.

These are some of the considerations which, in our opin-
ion, could be taken into account in preparing a free-city
status for West Berlin. Of course, this question must be
thoroughly thrashed out, and the Germans themselves could
make a big contribution to this effort. In the discussion
of the question of turning West Berlin into a demilitarized
free city, the Soviet Union is ready, of course, to set forth
a more detailed definition of its status.

Question: What questions connected with the status of
West Berlin does the Soviet Government believe could be
the subject of talks between the four Great Powers, and
what questions are not subjects for such a discussion?

Answer: In its Notes to the Governments of the three
Western Powers the Soviet Government has declared the
best solution to the Berlin question to be that based on
the fulfilment of the Potsdam Agreement on Germany.

776

This would stipulate the return of the Western Powers to
the Potsdam principles, to a joint policy with the Soviet
Union on the German question. In that case, the question
would arise of annulling the decisions taken in violation
of the Potsdam Agreement, and above all of its military
injunctions. It goes without saying that these questions
should be the subject of a quadripartite discussion. It is
true that all indications are that the Western Powers do
not wish to give up their policy of turning West Germany
into NATO's main atomic and rocket base, into a militar-
ist state whose entire life, even now, is being directed
along the road to war and revenge, although that road
spells disaster for the Federal Republic of Germany.

In an effort to put an end to the abnormal situation
in Berlin, the Soviet Union has proposed to the Western
Powers that talks be initiated on granting West Berlin
the status of a demilitarized free city. Besides the propo-
sitions I have set forth— propositions determining the sta-
tus of the free city— all the technical questions relating
to the final elimination of the vestiges of the occupation
of Berlin could be the subject of talks. We would be ready
to consider any possible proposals and amendments by
the Western Powers.

I take the second part of your question to mean that
you allow for possible Western attempts to prevent the
elimination of the vestiges of the occupation regime in
Berlin and to question the right of the Soviet Union to
transfer to the German Democratic Republic the func-
tions temporarily discharged by the Soviet side. In the
event that the Western Powers refuse to grant the status
of a free city to West Berlin, there will be no basis left
for talks with the Western Powers on the Berlin question.
We declare once again that we do not need the consent
of the Western Powers in order to implement the steps we
plan with regard to Berlin, and no claims of theirs to this ef-
fect will stop us. It is also absolutely clear that the Soviet
Government will not abandon the principles of non-inter -

777

ference in the internal affairs of other states and will not
discuss with the three Western Powers those aspects of
the German problem which can and must be solved by the
Germans themselves, and only by them. We would like to
tell those who are trying to inveigle us into such inter-
ference that their efforts are futile and only demonstrate
how far those making these attempts are from under-
standing the actual situation in Germany, and what a thick
mist shrouds their eyes.

Question: What actions by the Western Powers would
you regard as a frustration of the Soviet proposals?

Answer: The best thing for the Western Powers to do, if
they really desire to ease tension in Europe and do away
with potential danger points, would be to accept the So-
viet proposals to turn West Berlin into a demilitarized free
city. If the Western Powers refuse to accept the Soviet
proposals on the Berlin question, and this is the most they
can do, they will be unable, all the same, to prevent steps
— which depend on the Soviet Union — from being taken
to eliminate the vestiges of occupation in Berlin, because
these vestiges must and shall be done, away with. I shall
say nothing of the fact that in the event the Western Pow-
ers refuse to seek, together with the Soviet Union, for a
reasonable basis for doing away with the occupation re-
gime in West Berlin, they will expose themselves before
the German people— and, for that matter, not merely be-
fore them — as advocating the maintenance of an occupa-
tion regime for an indefinitely long period.

To continue the occupation of West Berlin means to con-
tribute toward carrying on and even stepping up the cold
war. The preservation of such a regime is explicable only
by a desire on the part of the Western Powers to prepare
for a hot war. There is, and there can be, no other expla-
nation because, if statesmen of the countries on which this
depends really want to create normal conditions and elim-
inate all that is fraught with the danger of war, then
nothing better than our proposals is conceivable. If some

778

other ways and means for eliminating tension were indi-
cated, we would gladly consider and accept them. But it
seems to us that in our proposals we have exhausted all
possibilities and we hope that tomorrow, if not today, those
responsible for the destiny of the world will realize the
timely and reasonable nature of our proposals.

The Western Powers have violated the obligations they
assumed towards the end of the war to destroy aggressive
German militarism. The Soviet Union is not bound by the
commitments of the Western Powers to equip West Ger-
many with atomic weapons. If the Western Powers do not
accept our proposals for eliminating the danger spot in
West Berlin, it will confirm that their actions point to an
early completion of the arming of West Germany and prep-
aration for a third world war. Therefore we shall press
with increasing insistence for ending the present situa-
tion in West Berlin.

Some hot-headed Western military leaders take the lib-
erty of making irresponsible statements concerning armed
forces and tanks to be used in clearing the way to
Berlin. But is it not clear that this would mean war, be-
cause the other side also has tanks and other more pow-
erful weapons which would not remain inactive. We do
not believe that the West wishes to unleash war in con-
nection with the Soviet Union's proposal to abolish the
last vestiges of the occupation regime in Berlin and in
connection with the fact that the German Democratic Re-
public will gain complete sovereignty after taking over
the functions temporarily discharged by the Soviet side.
But if, to our regret, this does happen, and if the fron-
tier along the Elbe is violated and aggression against the
German Democratic Republic is committed, then the So-
viet Union, as a loyal ally of the German Democratic
Republic under the Warsaw Treaty, will fulfil its com-
mitments and, together with the German Democratic Re-
public, will safeguard the inviolability of the republic's
land, water and air frontiers. The entire responsibility for

779

the consequences will be borne by those who try to secure
by force their domination over territory belonging to an-
other state, that is to say, to violate the sovereignty of the
German Democratic Republic. Therefore the best solution
to the problem would be to stop playing with war and
settle the Berlin question with due consideration for the
interests of our peoples and our future.

Question: What is your attitude to the arming of the Fed-
eral Republic of Germany with atomic weapons?

Answer: Those who advocate arming the Bundeswehr
with nuclear and rocket weapons are trying to present
matters as if the measures they are taking in this direc-
tion are necessary to protect the Federal Republic of Ger-
many from some "threat" coming from the East, and as
if these might ensure the security of the Federal Republic.
It is not difficult to see that these allegations, to say the
least, have nothing in common with the truth. The talk
about a "threat" from the Soviet Union is deception, and
its purpose is to justify measures aimed at drawing the
Federal Republic into the atomic and rocket race and to
stir up hatred against the Soviet Union among the West
German population.

The Soviet Union has never waged any aggressive
wars— such wars are foreign to the very nature of our
state. The U.S.S.R. does not intend, and never has intend-
ed, to attack either the Federal Republic of Germany or
any other state. The threat of "local attacks" on the Fed-
eral Republic by the Soviet Union, with which the Fed-
eral Republic's Defence Minister Strauss recently tried
to scare the West German population, is an absurd fab-
rication invented to meet the needs of revenge-seekers and
militarists. West Germany as a state would undoubtedly
stand to gain and would earn the confidence of neighbour-
ing peoples if it called to order the ill-starred strategists
in the Federal Republic who continue to slander peace-
loving nations and foment revanchist passions among the
German population.

780

The Soviet Government fully shares the opinion of those
West German circles who maintain that nuclear weapons
cannot serve as a means of ensuring the security of the Fed-
eral Republic of Germany, and that arming the Bundes-
wehr with these weapons, and stationing these weapons
on West German territory, threaten to destroy the Federal
Republic of Germany and spell death for millions upon mil-
lions of Germans, since all these measures are pushing
West Germany further and further along the road of war
preparations. Only politically blind and ignorant people
can fail to see the horrible prospects which are being pre-
pared for the Federal Republic of Germany by those who
are shaping the present military and political course of

this state. ,

We get the impression that those who advocate the nu-
clear arming of the Federal Republic either do not real-
ize to the full the danger to which they are exposing the
West German population or are doing this deliberately.
In either case they are committing a crime by pushing the
Federal Republic of Germany along a fatal course.

Question: Do you continue to support the proposal for
a confederation of the German states?

Answer: The Soviet Government has repeatedly stated
that the reunification of Germany is an internal matter
concerning the two German states. The solution of this
question can be effected only by the Germans themselves;
it cannot be introduced or imposed by someone from out-
side.

One can only be astonished by the statements of re-
sponsible officials of the Western Powers and the Federal
Republic of Germany to the effect that the Americans and
the British are better qualified to solve the task of re-
storing Germany's unity than the Germans themselves. This
by no means signifies that the Great Powers could not
play a definite part in restoring the unity of Germany by
facilitating a rapprochement of the two German states.
But the Western Powers do not wish to promote this; they

prefer to prescribe formulas to the Germans. This attitude
of the Western Powers and the Federal Republic with re-
gard to reunification is unrealistic.

Let us be frank. The people in the German Democratic
Republic are building socialism, while the capitalist sys-
tem still exists in the western part of the country. Only
people who are completely divorced from reality can sug-
gest a mechanical merger of two different states. Given
such an attitude, the impasse reached on reunification can-
not be resolved.

Proceeding on the basis of the situation that actually
prevails — the existence of two sovereign German states
with different social and economic systems — the Govern-
ment of the German Democratic Republic has put forward
a constructive plan for the reunification of Germany
through the creation of a confederation. This idea is gain-
ing ground every day. Increasingly broad sections of the
German population approve of this proposal of the Gov-
ernment of the German Democratic Republic.

You are well aware that the Soviet Government fully
supports the initiative of the German Democratic Repub-
lic. In the present situation the formation of a confedera-
tion is a reliable and practical way of establishing a unit-
ed democratic German state. No doubt you also know that
in spite of the favourable prospects opened up by the pro-
posal for confederation, Chancellor Adenauer rejects this
way— the only realistic way— of reuniting Germany. This
shows once again that the ruling circles of the Federal
Republic of Germany are using the talk about German
unity merely as a smoke-screen and that in actual fact
they are enemies of this unity. They do not want the reuni-
fication of the country, but only talk about reunification.
In actual fact Adenauer and his followers fear the reuni-
fication of Germany, since the establishment of a united,
peaceful, democratic Germany would mean the collapse
of their plans for making West Germany the main strik-

782

ing force of the aggressive NATO military bloc and the
collapse of their plans for aggression and revenge.

If the Federal Chancellor were really concerned about
the restoration of the country's unity would he then emerge
as the leader of a campaign for continuing the occu-
pation of West Berlin indefinitely? Why is he doing this?
In any case, it is not being done in the interests of the
West Berlin population, who have to put up with the occu-
pation regime. Nor is it being done, of course, in the in-
terests of a detente and the establishment of normal re-
lations between neighbouring countries.

Or let us take the question of a peace treaty with Ger-
many. It is indeed unbelievable that the Head of the Gov-
ernment of one of the existing German states does not
want to conclude a peace treaty through negotiations
with the Soviet Union and the three Western Powers— the
leading participants in the anti-Hitler coalition— and with
the participation of the two sovereign German states
which have emerged on the territory of Germany. Chan-
cellor Adenauer, like his NATO partners, is apparently
striving for some other peace treaty which would actually
abolish the German Democratic Republic. But no sober-
minded person can expect this to be accepted. What
grounds are there for raising the question of abolishing
the German Democratic Republic— the first workers' and
peasants' state in the history of Germany? For that mat-
ter, the Germans in the German Democratic Republic
could suggest the abolition of the Federal Republic of
Germany and reunify the country on the basis of the so-
cialist principles on which the German Democratic Re-
public is based. But it is obvious that neither of these two
approaches to the question is realistic. The only practical
possibility of solving the German question once and for
all is through a peaceful settlement with Germany. In con-
cluding a peace treaty with Germany, the existence of
the two German states must undoubtedly be taken into
consideration and they must be invited to take part in the

783

negotiations of the four Great Powers. This would be the
most reasonable solution to the problem and would be
welcomed by the people of all countries, who yearn for the
relaxation of tension and for peace to be secured. But if
the Federal Chancellor insists on something else, it signi-
fies that he is pursuing other aims but not those which
guarantee peace. It means that he is pursuing a danger-
ous "positions of strength" policy. He wishes to create
an army and to arm it with atomic weapons; he wishes
to pursue a policy of force. Thus it follows that Chancel-
lor Adenauer is pursuing a policy which may lead to dis-
aster, to the collapse of West Germany, since under pres-
ent conditions, with the existence of modern weapons of
mass destruction, war would be of a devastating nature.
This is monstrous, of course, but it is a fact, and we must
not shut our eyes to it. We would like to believe that the
sound patriotic forces which exist in West Germany and
are concerned for the destiny of their people, will correctly
understand this in good time and do everything in their
power to prevent the unleashing of a third world war.

Pravda, December 13, 1958

Due

Date Due

pOLLEGt LIBRARY
Keturnea

D"e Returned

3?.7 47

i-.

c . 9

K pobede v mirnom sorevnovanii main
327.47K45fC2

3 12b2 032flS 7A0t

^%»#iM»i«*«^

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "For victory in peaceful competition with capitalism"

See other formats